An  exposure 


Ue'  THB 


BUAMB 


UL  RELIGIOUS  PERSECUTIONS, 


BUFFERED  BY 


HE€  A.  PICKENS  AND  OTHERS, 


AT  THE  HANDS  OP 


11 


REV.  WILLIAM  MICKS, 

Pre  Is j ding  elder  in  holston  conference, 


11  Truth  crushed  to  earth,  will  rise  agaiu» 
The  eternal  years  of  God  are  hers.'' 


B7  JOHN  PARIS. 


Vch 


r.RBENEMIXE,  TENS- 
'PR  I.N  Till)  AV  THE 


\ 


PREFACE. 

Why  has  this  Pamphlet" been  written  ?  The  answer  is,  lo  de- 
fend the  truth,  and  place  it  in  her  proper  position  before  the  com- 
munity ;  and,  likewise,  to  expose  the  malicious  conduct  and  action* 
of  a  reckless  man,  in  his  attempts  to  injure  and  destroy  the  char- 
acter and  reputation  of  one  or  more,  whose  life  has  been  long 
and  well  known  in  Buncombe  and  the  adjoining  counties. 

It  is  well  known  that  Rev.  Wm.  Hicks,  has  written,  published, 
and  circulated  in  this  part  of  North  Carolina,  at  least  three  differ- 
ent Pamphlets,  one  Circular,  and  one  Newspaper  article,  making 
in  all  five  different  printed  publications — in  each  one  of  which  he 
boldly  attacks  and  traduces  the  moral,  religious,  and  ministerial 
character  of  a  venerable  Minister  of  the  Gospel,  of  more  than 
forty  years  standing,  Rev.  A.  Pickens. 

This  aged  Minister  has  been  long  known,  and  well  known,  and 
much  approved  wherever  he  has  been  known.  But  acting;  his  part 
as  a  conscientious  christian,  he  had  the  misfortune  to  offend  Rev. 
Wm.  Hicks,  Presiding  Elder,  of  Holston  district.  This  Presid- 
ing Elder,  finding  himself  involved  in  difficulties  in  the  Church 
and  community,  and  lacking  magnanimity  to  free  himself  there- 
from, honorably,  resorted  to  the  shameful  trick  of  publishing 
attacks  upon  the  character  and  standing  of  the  old  j  Minister,  no 
doubt  plotting  thereby,  and  preparing  the  way  to  effect  his  expul- 
sion from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South.  He  not  only 
succeeded  in  this  effort,  but  he  also  effected,  through  his  co-labor- 
ers, the  expulsion  of  one  or  more  similarly  situated  to  Rev.  A. 
Pickens. 

Not  being  satisfied  with  the  exclusion  of  these  persons  from  the 
Church,  he  has  still  persecuted  them,  by  publishing  in  his  Pamph- 


PREFACE. 


feta  the  details  of  their  trials,  in  order  to  make  the  impression 
abroad  that  they  had  justice  done  them,  but  such  scandalous  perse- 
cution bv,  ng  too  intolerable  to  be  borne,  are  exposed  with  perfec1 
freedom  in  this  Pamphlet. 

It  would  have  been  best  for  the  writings  and  Pamphlets  of  this 
noted  defamer  to  pass  unnoticed,  but  for  the  fact  that  they  may  still 
be  read  after  Rev.  A.  Pickins  is  no  more.  It  is,  therefore,  right 
tjjey  should  meet  the  public  exposure  they  merit.    For — 

"Tie  who  steals  my  purse,  steals  trash, 
But  he  that  filches  me  of  my  good  name, 
Robs  me  of  that  which  not  enriches  him 
But  makes  me  poor  indeed." 

The  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  been 
compared  to  "  a  wheel  within  a  wheeV> — this  Pamphlet  showa  how 
easy  it  is  for  a  Presiding  Elder,  or  an  itinerant  preacher  to  grind  a 
subject,  by  an  upper  wheel  operating  upon  a  lower.  Rev.  A. 
Pickens  and  Maj.  A.  H.  Brittain,  are  cases  in  hand.  All  the  testi- 
mony brought  forward  in  this  work,  has  been  furnished  by  Mr. 
Hicks  himself  in  his  Pamphlets  and  letters,  except  a  written  copy 
or  the  charges  made  against  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  which  I  did  not  even 
record,  but  used  Mr.  Hick's  printed  version.  If  I  have  done  Mr. 
Hicks  injustice,  any  where,  upon  any  point,  it  has  been  because  I 
have  misunderstood  his  own  published  documents  and  Pamphlets. 
If  this  Pamphlet  contains  any  errors,  they  are  of  my  head  and  not 
cf  my  heart.  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  A.  H.  Brittain,  nor  any  body  else, 
are  not  responsible  for  any  thing  contained  herein.  I  am  the  only 
and  absolute  author,  and  claim  the  entire  responsibility  for  every 
sentence  or  paragraph  in  thi.5  Pamphlet.  Wherever  it  may  come, 
it  is  my  work  and  no  other  man's.  And  I  hereby  grant  authority 
to  any  man,  and  all  men,  wheresoever,  and  whensoever,  to  print, 
publish,  sell,  vend,  distribute,  and  circulate  the  same  according  to 
their  good  pleasure,  in  oider  that  truth  may  be  defended,  and  erro^ 
and  injustice  exposed  before  the  world. 

JOHN  PARIS, 

North  Carolina  Conference, 


TO  THE  PUBLIC. 

The  reader  is,  perhaps,  aware  that  rumor  with  her  venom' 
pus  tongue,  and  ruthless  tramp,  will  often  travel  five  miles 
while  truth  is  putting  on  her  slippers.  Four  different  docu- 
ments or  publications  having  already  gone  forth  to  the  public, 
from  the  pen  of  the  Rev.  W.  Hicks,  in  vindication  of  the 
"Reem's  Creek  Division  of  Sons  of  Temperance,*'  &c,  in 
which  documents  the  reader  can  easily  discover  a  great  lack 
of  that  "charity  which  hopeth  ail  things,  beareth  all  things, 
believeth  all  things,"  and  a  barbarous  effort  is  visible,  on  the 
part  of  said  writer  to  tarnish  the  reputation  of  one  or  more 
individuals,  who  had  been  longer  known,  and  better  known 
than  himself,  and  equally  as  favorably  known,  in  Buncombe 
and  the  adjoin'ng  counties. 

These  four  different  publications,  possessed  of  the  character 
which  they  bear,  seem  to  demand  a  repiy  in  order  that  truth 
may  be  placed  in  a  proper  light,  and  her  position  defended. 

The  first  pamphlet  in  question,  written  by  the  Rev.  gentle- 
man, is  entitled,  "Exposition  and  Vindication  of  the  princi- 
ples of  the  '  Oorder  of  the  Sons  of  Temperance,'  or  objections 
to  the  'Sons,'  answered  f  and  brings  to  view  a  difficulty  that 
occurred  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South,  at  Salem 
Church,  Buncombe  County,  of  which  the  following  is  Rev. 
Mr.  Hick's  account :  "Accordingly,  about  the  second  week  in 
July,  1850,  a  number  of  persons  met  at  Salem  Church. — 
There  and  then,  the  first  effort  was  made  to  get  a  "  Reem'a 
Creek  Division."    After  the  writer  had  made  his  speech,  he 


requested  any  person  present  who  might  feel  opposed  to  the 
measures  which  he  had  advocated,  to  come  forward  and  givt 
his  editions.  #  #  #  Brother  Pickens,  (whom  the  writer 
always  respected,  from  the  time  he  made  his  acquaintance, 
and  still  respects,  and  feels  determined  to  respect,  while  his 
grey  hairs  adorn  him,  as  a  Methodist  preacher  of  long  stand- 
ing,) took  the  floor,  and  urged  a  few  objections  to  the  4  Order 
of  the  Sons.'  Those  objections  were  briefly  answered  by  the 
writer,  and  all  things  passed  off  well  enough.  Right  there, 
however,  the  controverspy  commenced,"  &c.  Here,  then,  is  a 
•plain  statement  of  the  origin  of  all  this  difficulty. 

Rev.  W.  Hicks  makes  a  speech  in  favor  of  the  "  Order  of 
the  Sons  of  Temperance,"  and  then  invites  Rev.  A.  Pickens, 
44  whom  he  always  respected,  and  feels  determined  to  respect,,* 
to  "come  forward  and  give  his  objections."  He  accepted  the 
invitation,  and  gave  his  objections.  Hence  the  difficulty  be- 
gan. (See  pages  4  and  5,  of  the  pamphlet  quoted)  "And 
with  whom  did  it  commence  ?"  asks  Mr.  Hicks  in  his  second 
pamphlet,  entitled  "The  way  the  Wind  Blows;"  (page  3,)  and 
answers  his  own  question  thus  :  "With  the  Rev.  A.  Pickens* 
than  whom  it  was  thought  temperance  had  not  a  warmer  friend 
any  where,  as  he  had  been  for  years  battling  in  its  cause, 
against  all  intoxicating  drinks ;  he  had  organized  many  Tem- 
perance Societies ;  had  presided  at  many  Temperance  meet- 
ings, and  was  President  of  our  meeting,  as  above  stated,  and 
had  gone  so  far  as  to  substitute  vinegar  for  alcohol  in  dissolv- 
ing his  camphor!  With  him  the  controversy  commenced,  for 
he  threw  the  first  stone." 

Is  not  this  a  most  ridiculous  position  assumed  by  Mr.  Hicks? 
Look  at  the  case  gentle  reader,  and  tell  us,  can  you  agree  with 
ibeRev.  gentleman  in  opinion?  1st,  he  made  a  speech.  2nd, 


7 


He  requested  any  person  present  who  might  feel  opposed  to 
the  measures,  to  come  forward  and  give  his  objections."  Rev 
A.  Pickens,  being  invited,  came.  He  gave  his  objecti^/s, — 
Rev.  W.  Hicks  tells  us  Rev.  A.  Pickens  "  threw  the  first  stone," 
The  iacts  iri  the  case  contradict  the  assertion.  Rev.  Mr.  Hicks 
appointed  the  meeting,  a  nd  spoke  first — he  assumed  the  posi- 
tion. He  called  upon  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  (or  any  one  else,)  to 
speak,  who  replied,  assuming  the  negative.  And,  strange  to 
tell,  in  the  face  of  his  own  declarations,  he  asserts,  "  with  him 
(A.  Pickens,)  the  controversy  commenced,  for  he  "  threw  the 
first  stone."  Wonderful  testimony  indeed!!  The  writer  both 
contradicts  and  condemns  himself ;  and  every  reader  who 
reads  the  pamphlet  through,  will  plainly  perceive  that  Rev.  W. 
Hicks,  himself,  began  this  controversey,  and  Rev.  W.  Hicks 
has  had  a  very  active  hand  in  keeping  it  up.  He  has  struck 
the  first  blow,  and  then  to  shield  himself  from  the  consequen- 
ces, endeavors  to  assume  the  amiable  attitude  of  self-defence. 

The  next  item  that  we  shall  stop  to  notice  in  Rev.  Mr.  Hick's 
pamphlets  is,  the  desecration  of  Salem  Church,  by  the  female* 
meeting  there  on  a  certain  day  to  make  regalia  for  the  "Sons." 
Pretty  work  indeed !  the  house  of  God  turned  into  a  work- 
shop!! and  that  work  was  not  for  the  benefit  or  relief  of  the 
poor — nor  to  enable  the  church  to  send  the  Gospel  to  the  hea- 
then or  the  destitute — but  to  make  regalia  for  the  order  of  the 
Sons!  What  an  outrageous  desecration!!  Rev.  Mr.  Hicks 
tells  us  in  his  second  pamphlet,  "  that  Church  has  been  dedica* 
ted  to  temperance  as  well  as  religion"  This  is  shocking  lan- 
guage indeed,  to  come  from  a  Minister  of  the  Church  o( 
Christ!  That  Church  has  been  dedicated  to  the  worship  of 
Almighty  God,  and  to  no  other  purpose  under  the  heavens. 
A  Division  room  of  the  "Sons"  may  be  dedicated  with  pro- 
priety to  temperance  and  religion,"  but  a  house  of  worship  is 


3 


a  house  dedicated  and  devoted  to  the  worship  of  God  alone*, 
Could  not  these  young  ladies  have  met  at  some  private  house 
among^their  friends  for  the  purpose  of  making  "  regalia,"  and 
thereby'ivoided  wounding  the  feelings  of  the  members  and 
friends  of  the  Church  ?  Certainly  it  would  have  been  easy  to. 
have  done  so.  But  iio — -  it  was  agreed  that  the  house  of  God 
should  be  used  as  a  work-shop  for  that  day.  It  is  written,' 
u  My  house  shall  be  called  a  house  of  prayer,"  but  no  where 
is  it  called  a  work-shop.  Rev.  A.  Pickens  had  furnished  the 
land  on  which  this  house  had  been  built;  he  had  been  one  of 
the  foremost  in  getting  it  up,  in  order  to  have  a  place  in  which 
himself  and  neighbors  might  worship  without  let  or  hindrance. 
His  head  had  grown  white  in  the  service  of  Christ  and  his 
cause.  His  zeal  knew  no  abatement,  and  his  principles  coald 
not  compromise  with  any  thing  that  militated  against  what 
he  conceived  to  be  the  true  interests  of  the  cause  of  godliness ; 
therefore  this  old  veteran  could  not  consent  for  the  house  of  God 
to  be  used  either  as  a  work-shop  to  make  regalia,  or  as  a  Divis* 
ion  room  for  the  "  order  of  the  Sons."  The  name  of  Jesus, 
with  him,  >vaa  "high  over  all." 

Tbis  aged  Minister  was  one  of  the  Trustees,  but  as  the  Rev. , 
lilr.  Hicks  tells  us,  a  majority  of  the  Trustees  had  agreed  for 
the  house  to  be  used  as  desired  by  the  Sons,  it  seems  the  old 
brother's  feelings  were  not  to  be  either  regarded  or  respected 
in  the  case;  and  for  his  fatherly  admonition  to  the  young 
women,  for  meeting  there  to  sew,  a  labored  effort  is  made  by 
the  Rev.  pamphlet  writer,  to  ihrow  odium  upon  his  old  chris- 
tian brother  for  whom  he  had  professed  so  much  respect  and 
regard  in  the  cutset.  Alas!  alas!!  What  a  tendency  poor 
human  weakness  has,  when  sinkings  to  "catch  at  straws! 
What  crude  inconsistency  does  it  exhibit  in  a  christian^ 
Minister? 


.  Some  ot  the  Trustees  of  Salem  Church  had  been  consulted 
about  the  use  of  the  house  for  the  " Order  of  the  Sons"  and 
Rev.  Mr.  Hicks  tells  us  a  majority  had  given  their  consent. 
But,  admitting  this  to  be  the  case,  such  consent  did  not,- it 
could  not  satisfy  the  community,  or  a  great  part  of  the  mem- 
bership of  the;  Church ;  and  yet,  in  the  face  of  this  dissatis- 
faction, our  Presiding  Elder  and  his  friends,  undertook  to 
appropriate  the  house  to  the  use  of  the  "  Order  of  the  Sons.' 
The  temperance  principles  of  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  none  can 
doubt,  who  reads  Mr.  Hick's  account  of  them.  All  must  ad- 
mit him  to  be  a  tee-to-tale  r  of  the  highest  order.  But,  let  it 
be  borne  in  mind  by  the  reader,  that  there  is  a  selfishness,  and 
exclusiveness,  to  be  found  among  the  "  Order  of  the.  Sons," 
that  is  unknown — entirely  unknown,  among  our  temperance 
societies.  The  exclusiveness  that  exists  among  them,  is  of  the 
same  order  of  exclusiveness,  as  that  which  exists  among  the 
orders  of  "  Odd-Fellows,"  and  "  Free-Masons."  Like  the  last 
named  orders,  they  have  their  regular  fund  for  mutual  benefit 
&c.,  &c,  temperance  being1  only  one  of  the  conditions  upon 
which  an  individual  retains  his  membership  among  them. 
For  disclosing  the  secret  transactions  of  the  Division,  a  strict 
temperance  man  may  be  expelled  therefrom;  for  failing,  or 
refusing  to  contribute  to  the  common  fund  his  regular  dues,  a 
good  temperance  man  may  be  expelled.  Therefore,  we  are 
bold  in  the  assertion,  that  the  "  Order  of  the  Sons,"  assimilate 
too  much  to  the  "Odd-Fellows,"  and  "Free-Masons,"  to  pass 
themselves  in  this  enlightened  land  for  a  temperance  society 
proper.  And  who  would,  for  a  moment,  assent  for  "Free- 
Masons"  and  "Odd-Fellows,"  to  organize  in,  and  conduct 
their  regular  business '  meetings  in  a  house  devoted  to  the 
worship  of  God  alone?  Rev.  A.  Pickens  and  many  of  his 
religious  brethren  could  not,  and  did  not;  and,  forsooth,  their 

B 


10  / 

Presiding  Elder,  virtually  assuming  the  character  of  a  clerical 
dragoon,  assails  him  and  them  in  a  most  uncharitable  manner, 
in  two  pamphlets,  and  one  newspaper  essay,  and  one  printed 
circular.    Oh  shame !  where  is  thy  blush ? 

To  show  off  this  Methodis  tparson's  good  breeding  as  a  gen- 
tleman, and  christian  politeness  towards  his  veteran  brother, 
and  senior  in  the  ministry,  whose  head  has  been  whitened  by 
the  frosts  of  many  winters,  we  shall  quote  one  sentence  from 
page  4,  of  his  second  pamphlet.    Here  is  the  quotation : 

"  Amusing  thought,  that  the  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  and  the  dram- 
drinkers  of  the  neighborhood,  met,  either  by  express  under- 
standing, or  by  a  strange  influence,  which  moved  preacher 
and  drunkard  alike,  to  fly  to  the  rescue  of  the  church  against 
the  Sons  of  Temperance,  having  among  them  Methodist 
preachers !" 

The  indecency  of  this  sentence,  coming  from  the  pen  of  Rev. 
W.  Hicks,  is  comment  enough.  Methodist  preachers  in  some 
instances,  have  proved  themselves  to  be  no  better  than  they 
ought  to  be.  Does  the  reader  want  proof  in  the  case  t  The 
proof  is  furnished  by  Mr.  Hicks  himself,  in  writing  the  sen- 
tence quoted  above. 

Matters  having  arrived  at  such  a  crisis,  in  February,  bwing 
to  the  dissatisfaction  which  the  proceedings  of  the  "  Order  of 
the  Sons"  had  produced  upon  the  minds  of  the  members  of 
the  church,  that  it  became  apparent  that  many  would  with- 
draw therefrom,  unless  the  excitement  produced  at  Salem 
Church  could  be  allayed,  the  Sons  appointed  a  meeting  to  be 
held  at  Flat  Creek,  on  Feb.  15th,  1851,  "  and  thus  prevent  the 
calamities  mentioned  above."  At  this  meeting,  the  Rev.  W, 
Hicks  offered  a  preamble  and  resolutions  for  adoption,  which 
he  called  the  "  Olive-branch  of  Peace."  These  resolutions 
were  discussed  pro  et  con,  and  according  to  Mr,  Hick's  ac- 


11 


count,  were  rejected  by  a  majority  of  the  meeting,  although 
adopted  by  the  vote  of  the  Sons.  The  resolutions  suited  the 
Sons,  as  they  were  offered  by  them,  hence  they  could  afford  to 
vote  for  them.  But  what  is  so  startling  and  strange  is  the 
very  contradictory  account  Mr.  Hicks  publishes  to  the  world 
about  the  rejection  of  them  by  those  opposed  to  the  Sons,  in 
all  of  which  there  is  a  studied  effort,  apparent  on  his  part,  to 
affect  the  moral  and  religious  standing  of  Rev.  A.  Pickens, 
Maj.  Britain,  and  others.  A  low  piece  of  work  indeed  for  a 
professed  minister  of  the  religion  of  Christ  to  be  engaged  in. 
Mr.  Hicks  attempts  to  make  quite  a  parade  in  about  ten  pages 
of  his  second  pamphlet  about  the  rejection  of  these  resolutions 
which  we  now  propose  to  notice  in  a  brief  manner,  in  order 
to  expose  the  course  pursued  by  him  and  his  party,  in  order 
to  accomplish  their  purposes. 

According  to  his  own  account  this  meeting  was  appointed 
by  the  "  Sons."  The  opposition  attended,  and  entered  into 
the  discussion  with  their  opponents,  (we  will  not  say  enemies,) 
as  the  other  party  had  done  with  them  at  a  meeting  held  on 
Flat  Creek,  a  short  time  before.  Mr.  Hicks  on  behalf  of  the 
Sons,  offered  his  four  resolutions  one  of  which  embraced 
.seven  items — they  were  debated  and  adopted  by  the  meeting. 
Hear  what  Mr.  Hicks  says  himself:  "  To  be  sure,  the  plan  was 
adopted  by  the  Sons  and  a  few  others,  despite  the  efforts  of 
the  leaders  in  the  opposition.  A  large  majority  of  the  audi- 
ence did  not  vote  at  all.  But  as  one  of  the  rules  adopted  for 
the  government  of  the  meeting,  stated  that  those  who  did  not 
vote  on  any  motion,  should  not  be  counted  pro  or  con  ;  the 
compromise  was  farily  adopted." — (The  way  the  wind  blows 
page  10.) 

Here  then  we  have  his  plain,  unvarnished  statement.  Every 


12 

reader  may  understand  it.  He  tells  us  "the  compromise  was 
fiairly  adopted."  And  again,  on  page  17,  of  the  same  pamph- 
let, he  says  not  one  of  the  opposition  "  voted  for  it."    In  the 

next  place  see  how  this  author  of  strife  and  contention  wrig^ 
gies  to  work  himself  and  party  out  of  their  unpleasant  predic- 
ament. See  his  words  on  the  last  named  page.  "  But  it  may 
be  asked  why  did  we  not  abide  by  the  compromise  ?  We 
answer,  1st.  We  did  not  intend  it  to  be  a  compromise  unless 
it  could  hold  our  enemies  as  well  as  ourselves." 

•  Who,  we  ask,  has  ever  read  of  such  duplicity  as  this,  and 
that  too,  published: to  the  world  by  its  author?  Look  it  full  in 
the  face,  gentle  reader,  and  tell  us  how  it  looks  coming  from  a 
Methodist  parson  ?  First,  he  tells  us  that  according  to  "  one  of 
the  rules  of  the  meeting,  those  who  did  not  vote  on  any  motion 
should  not  be  counted  pro  or  con."  Secondly,  he  tells  us  the 
resolution  or  the  plan  was  adopted  by  the  Sons  and  a  few  others. 
Thirdly,  he  tells  us  "  we  did  not  intend  it  to  be  a  compromise, 
unless  it  could  hold  our  enemies  as  well  as  ourselves."  This 
will  not  do  Mr.  Hicks.  Fair  dealing  Sir,  would  certainly  de- 
come  a  Methodist  parson  best.  And,  according  to  your  own 
account  of  this  voting,  and  adoption  of  the  plan,  you  leave  us 
to  understand,  Sir,  that  you  intended  fair  play — designed  no 
humbuggery— we  therefore  insist  that  these  resolutions  which 
you  and  your  friends  adopted  at  Flat  Creek  meeting,  are  bind- 
ing upon  you  with  all  the  force  of  a  moral  obligation.  No 
Sir,  it  will  do  you  no  good  to  flounder.  The  compromise 
"with  its  complicated  foldings"  will  hold  you  fast,  and  an 
honest  community  will  do  you  justice."  Your  position  is  a 
most  pitiful  one.  You  and  your  friends,  by  your  ill-timed  and 
indiscrete  steps,  have  worked  up  confusion  and  contention  in 
the  church  and  community,  and  you  are  lacking  in  magna- 
nimity and  charity  to  allay  it  in  the  true  spirit  of  Christianity, 


13 


Pride  may  say  take  no  steps  backward — but  Christianity  says 
"IF  meat  make  niy  brother  to  offend,  I  will  eat  no  flesh  while 
the  world  standeth."  Your  own  actions,  Sir,  tell  in  this  case. 
You  have  made  things  worse  by  the  unmanly  and  unholy  step 
you  took  to  bring  things  to  work  your  own  way.  You  under- 
took to  stigmatize,  and  by  ridicule  to  bring  into  contempt,  the 
gray  hairs  and  hoary  head  of  that  aged  and  respected  minis- 
ter of  the  gospel,  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  by  assailing  him  in  four 
different  publications,  and  imputing  to  him  that  confusion  of 
which  your  own  publications  prove  you  to  be  the  author 
You  have  disgusted  the  community  and  rent  the  church. 
You  have  attempted  to  sacrifice  your  aged  brother  Pickens  in 
the  ministry,  for  whom  you  expressed  so  high  a  regard  in  your 
first  pamphlet,  but  found  yourself  too  weak  to  effect  your  pur- 
pose. Your  actions  are  recoiling  upon  your  own  head,  and 
you  are  about  to  reap  tbfe  reward  of  your  labors.  But  pardon 
us,  Rev.  Sir — we  are  not  done  with  you  yet.  As  you  have 
manifested  a  fondness  yourself  for  writing,  we  hope  you  will 
be  patient.  We  now  arraign  you  before  the  public  for  that 
puerile,  unmanly,  unfair  attack  you  make  upon  those  who 
refused  to  vote  with  you  and  your  friends  at  the  meeting  at 
Flat  Creek,  on  Feb.  15th,  1851. 

1st.  We  begin  with  your  attack  upon  "  old  brother  Pickens" 
and  Maj.  Brittain,  by  comparing  them  to  Pilate  and  Herod. 
I  quote  from  your  book  "  The  Way  the  Wind  blows,"  page 
12.  You  say,  "  one  can  hardly  avoid  thinking  of  a  similar 
reconciliation  that  took  place  when  Jesus  was  to  be  crucified. 
4  And  the  same  day  Pilate  and  Herod  were  made  friends  to* 
gether ;  for  before  they  were  at  enmity  between  themselves.' 
Pilate  and  Herod  laid  aside  their  enmity  towards  each  other 
that  they  might  make  common  cause,  against  Christ.  The 


14 


Parson  and  Major  greet  each  other  as  brethren,  and  seem  to 
1  be  of  one  heart  and  of  one  mind,'  in  a  crusade  against  the 
Sons." 

Now,  Sir,  the  spirit  and  character  of  the  sentence  quoted 
above,  give  us  an  exhibition  of  your  principles,  and  will  illus- 
trate your  character  as  a  christian  man  before  an  impartial 
public.  Rev.  A.  Pickens  has  been  known  longer,  much  longer 
than  yourself  as  a  minister  of  Christ.  He  has  labored  more 
for  the  cause  of  godliness  than  you  have,  and  it  ill-becomes 
you,  as  his  junior,  to  compare  him  to  Pilate,  who  delivered 
Jesus  to  be  crucified.  Pilate,  the  heathen  Roman  governor!  t 
Did  the  spirit  of  Christ  prompt  \ou  to  this  act,  or  was  it  an- 
other spirit  that  I  refuse  to  name  ?  Will  you  be  so  good,  Sir, 
as  to  read  Romans  8th  chap.  9th.  verse? 

2nd.  We  now  come  to  notice  the  design  had  in  view  which 
you  impute  to  those  who  refused  to  vote  upon  your  compro- 
mise resolutions  at  the  Flat  Creek  meeting.  These  motives, 
Sir,  you  lay  down  upon  pages  14, 15, 16,  and  17,  and  indeed, 
some  of  them  are  too  bad  to  name.  According  to  your  own 
statement,  your  compromise  resolutions  had  not  been  voted 
ior  by  any  of  the  opposition,  whom'you  so  often,  and  so  un- 
feelingly\  in  your  writings  call  uour  enemies  ;v  a  few  had 
voted  against  some  of  the  items,  but  many  of  them  had  not 
voted  at  all.  Your  plan  was  not  accepted  by  them,  and  for- 
sooth, in  your  pamphlet  you  denounce  them  as  calling  for 
"  confusion,  contention,  excitement,  crimination,  and  recrimin- 
ations, divisions,  withdrawals  from  church,"  &c  Now,  Sir 
we  put  the  question  to  you  plainly — were  they  not  freemen  as 
well  as  yourself?  and  in  refusing  at  your  meeting  to  vote  for 
or  adopt  your  plan,  did  they  commit  themselves  at  all  upon 
these  vague  abstractions,  which  you  standing  in  your  ministe- 


15 


rial  oflice,  have  stooped  so  low,  as  10  rake  up  and  impute  to 
them?  No,  Sir — you  know  they  did  not.  Ali  that  old-fash- 
ioned honesty  can  say  of  them  is  this :  they  refused  to  adopt 
your  written  plan,  at  the  time,  under  the  circumstances.  This 
sadly  mortified  the  Presiding  Elder,  the  creature  of  a  Bishop. 
Km\  behold  the  ribaldry  that  flows  from  his  pen,  in  order  to 
show  off  their  character  as  bad  men !!  But  the  end  is  not  yet. 
Hear  us  calmly.  If  freemen  in  refusing  to  adopt  your  plan, 
indirectly  place  themselves,  in  the  position  which  you  say  they 
did,  your  plan  (hen,  was  nothing  but  a  clap-trap,  a  humbug, 
and  worse  than  a  humbug,  and  should  have  been  rejected  by 
every  body,  even  yourself. 

3rd.  We  next  come  to  notice  your  article  in  the  "Ashevillc 
News,"  of  June  5th;  1851.  In  that  article  you  tell  us  that  you 
did  use  "some  severity  for  the  first  time,"  when  ;you  met  for 
the  third  time,  those  persons  whom  you  had  so  often  called 
"our  enemies,"  in  your  two  former  pamphlets.  Severity  for 
the  first  time  II  What  is  severity  ?  Read  those  two  pamphlets 
and  then  tell  us  what  is  severity!!  If  scurrility,  bilingsgale, 
abuse,  and  defamation  contained  therein  do  not  constitute 
severity,  we  know  not  what  can  be  severity.  And  those  two 
pamphlets  were  written  before  he  met  the  people  called  "our 
enemies,"  the  third  time.  Parson  does  not  the  truth  look  you 
very  sternly  in  the  face  just  here  ?  Truth  is  a  very  pretty  thing 
and  ought  to  suit  your  purpose ;  but,  your  misfortune  is,  you 
have  written  too  much.  Had  these  two  pamphlets  nothing  to 
do  in  reference  to  past  discussions?  It  would  be  passing  strange 
if  they  had  not. 

4th.  We  now  come  to  a  piece  of  severity  that  is  seldom 
equalled  now-a-days.  There  stands  a  paragraph  in  your 
Newspaper  essay,  having  no  connection  at  all,  as  we  conceive, 
with  other  members  of  &aid  essay,  in  which  you  advertise  all 


16 


readers,  that  Maj.  A.  H.  Brittain.  had  been  brought  before  the 
church  upon  charges  and  found  guilty;  and,  though  you 
state  that  "  before  the  trial  commenced,  he  read  a  paper  which 
declared  the  connection  with  our  church  of  some  six  or  seven 
members  dissolved."  in  a  few  sentences  afterwards,  you  give 
Jhe  information  that  Maj.  Brittain  was  expelled.  This,  Sir, 
appears  to  be  a  new  piece  of  clerical  severity.  For  a  Presi- 
ding Eider,  to  advertise  in  a  political  paper,  the  trial  and  ex- 
pulsion of  a  layman,  is  certainly  without  a  parallel  in  our 
country.  You  also  inform  us  this  was  done,  "on  the  following 
charges,  in  substance :  1st,  Contempt  of  the  constituted  author- 
ities of  the  church.  2nd.  Inveighing  against  our  book  of 
Discipline,  where  it  provides  for  ministerial  suppoH;  and,  3rd. 
A  violation  of  an  agreement  for  the  peace  of  the  church? 
These  were  the  charges  in  substance,  you  tell  us.  Why  did 
you  not  give  us  the  precise  specifications  when  you  felt  your- 
self at  liberty  to  publish?  Then  you  would  have  told  "the 
truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,"  and  thereby 
have  made  no  wrong  impression.  But  we  take  your  own 
account  of  this  transaction,  as  we  propose  to  fight  you  first, 
with  your  own  "  am  munition?  and  we  declare  that  you  had 
no  earthly  right,  neither  by  Holy  Writ,  nor  by  your  own  book 
of  IHscipline,  to  try  Maj.  Brittain,  or  to  expel  him. 

1st.  Any  member  of  church  has  a  right  to  withdraw,  or  ex- 
patriate himself  from  the  church,  as  in  his  judgment  seems 
best. 

2nd.  Maj.  Brittain  had  exercised  this  right  by  formallv 
withdrawing  from  the  M.  E.  Church  South.  Hence,  you  tell 
us  of  a  man  who  was  found  guilty  and  expelled,  who  did  not 
belong  to  the  church.  This  is  certainly  patent  right  severity!! 
Certainly  there  must  have  been  a  great  desire  to  destroy  the 
Major,  at  least  his  good  name.    But  to  the  charges. 


1* 

1st  "  Contempt  of  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  church" 
By  "contempt,"  I  suppose  you  mean  disregard.  First.  Every 
member  of  the  church,  we  presume,  acts  towards  the  authori- 
ties, upon  the  convictions  of  his  own  judgment  as  to  what 
duty  requires  in  the  case.  Second.  The  authorities  may  sup- 
pose themselves  entitled  to  more  honor  than  their  brethren  con- 
cede to  them.  Third.  The  authorities  of  the  church  when 
they  undertake  to  chastise  for  such  an  offense  as  this,  become 
judges  in  their  own  case,  although  they  are  fallible  men, 

2nd.  "  Inveighing  against  our  book  of  Discipline  where  it 
provides  for  ministerial  support."  By  "  inveighing"  we  un- 
derstand, to  "speak  against."  First.  We  reply  that  Major 
Brittain  was  an  American  freeman.  Second.  As  such  he  had 
a  clear  right  to  express  his  opinion  concerning  any  law  of  the 
State,  or  any  rule  of  the  church  to  which  he  belonged,  no 
law  of  God  forbidding,  nor  any  express  rule  of  discipline. 

3rd.  "A  violation  of  an  agreement  for  the  peace  of  the 
church."  By  "  agreement,"  we  understand  a  "  proper  contract 
or  treaty  made  with  the  proper  authority.  First.  We  answer 
to. this,  no  rule  of  discipline  required  him  to  enter  into  any 
Such  contract,  with  any  church  authority  whatsoever.  Second* 
If  he  entered  into  any  such  contract,  he  had  as  much  right  as 
any  one  else  to  judge  of  what  constituted  "the  peace  of  the 
church,"  and  if  he  honestly  foresaw  that  the  interests  of  "pure 
and  undefiied  religion*"  were  about  to  suffer  from  his  silence, 
it. became  him  as  a  christian,  to  break  from  any  "agreement*' 
into  which  he  had  been  humbugged — for  "  there  is  a  point  at 
which  forbearance  ceases  to  be  a  virtue." 

Now,  Sir,  in  all  these  things  it  is  clear  that  Maj.  Brittain, 
offended  against  no  express  rule  of  discipline,  nor  revealed 

law  of  God.    And,  hear  it  oh!  heavens?  and  give  ear  oh! 

c 


16 

earth !  the  man  that  had  withdrawn  formally  from  the  churchf 
was  tried  upon  these  fiimsey  allegations,  bearing  upon  their 
face  no  charge  of  immorality  whatsoever,  and  then  published 
to  the  worlcl  as  expelled ! !  But  some  man  must  be  sacrificed  to 
sustain  Mr.  Hicks,  and  the  lot  fell  upon  Maj.  Brittain. 

5th.  Next  in  order  comes  your  remarks  concerning  the  or- 
ganization of  the  church  at  the  Ridge  Meeting  House,  on  the 
24th  of  May.  And  here,  Sir,  permit  us  to  pronounce  your 
conduct  in  this  case  to  be  altogether  unworthy  of  your  coat, 
and  entirely  inconsistent  with  your  profession  as  a  christian. 
We  come  to  the  point.  You  inform  us  in  these  words,  of  the 
proceedings  of  said  meeting:  "At  that  place,  and  at  that  meet- 
ing, the  seceders  undertook  to  organize.  I  know  not  that  they 
did  organize,  but  tbey  did  something.'*  In  *he  second  sentence 
following,  you  positively  assert,  "they  organized  without  the 
direct  aid  of  any  preacher — that  is  if  they  organized  at  all." 

Now,  Sir, '.we  understand  from  your  pen  that  they  did  organ- 
ifce,  but  you  seem  altogether  unwilling  to  acknowledge  it  as 
such.  For  why  ?  Because  it  would  seem  from  your  language 
they  had  not  the  direct  aid  of  a  preacher.  Wonderful  dis- 
covery indeed!  A  body  of  christian  people  organize  them- 
selves into  a  church,  for  the  purpose  of  worshiping  God,  ta*« 
ing  the  Bible  as  their  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  yet 
you  have  the  brazen  -effrontery  to  ask  in  your  11th  paragraph, 
"Are  they  a  church  ?  Were  they  scripturally  organized  into  a 
Church?  Who  did  it?  #  #  #  #  They  are  no  church> 
nor  will  any  intelligent  minister  acknowledge  them  as  such, 
nnless  they  get  out  of  that  '  patch.5 "  Pretty  bold  position  for 
&  man  of  your  caste  to  assume,  unless  he  carried  more  "  am- 
unition"  than  you  do.   I  now  answer  your  questions : 

1st  They  are  a  church  to  all  intents  and  purposes.  2nd. 
They  were  scripturally  organized   3rd.  Any  minister  of  piety 


and  {earning  will  acknowledge  them  as  a  church,  William 
Hicks  to  the  contrary,  notwithstanding. 

2nd  They  organized  upon  scriptural  principles,  because  a* 
Christ's  freemen  they  had  the  undoubted  right  to  do  so.  By 
that  same  right  they  had  the  authority  to  choose  their  own 
minister,  This  was  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church,  ac- 
cording to  Lord  King,  and  Morheirn.  (See  their  accounts  of 
the  primitive  church.) 

3rd.  The  "aid"  of  any  preacher,  whosoever,  could  have 
given  no  validity  to  the  organization  that  it  does  not  possess- 
Upon  christian  faith  they  acted  for  themselves  in  the  premises ; 
hence  the  perfect  validity  of  the  organization.  Every  Presby- 
terian minister,  we  think,  will  acknowledge  this.  But  Mr. 
Hicks  must  be  excused  just  here.  His  ecclesiastical  school- 
ing has  been  in  a  church  in  which  the  laity  are  not  regarded 
as  possessing  any  ecclesiastical  rights  at  all.  When  has  a 
layman  sat  and  voted  in  any  one  of  the  legislative  depart- 
ments of  the  M.  E.  Church,  North  or  South  ?  Never.  When 
has  a  layman  voted  for  a  delegate  to  an  annual  or  General 
Conference  of  the  M.  E. Church,  South  or  North?  Never.  At 
the  Conference  which  met  at  Baltimore,  on  the  27th  of  De- 
cember, 1784,  which  was  composed  of  none  but  a  few  travel- 
ing preachers,  together  with  Dr.  Coke,  and  Mr.  Asbury,  these 
few  itinerants,  without  even  consulting  the  laity,  or  inviting 
one  to  take  a  seat  among  them,  organized  the  M.  E.  Church. 
Rev.  Jesse  Lee,  says,  in  his  history  of  the  Methodists,  page 
94 ;  "  At  this  Conference  we  formed  ourselves  into  a  regular 
church,  by  the  name  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church." 
Now,  according  to  this  language,  under  the  circumstances, 
we  might  suppose  that  either  these  few  self-constituted  legisla- 
tors had  full  authority  over  the  laity,  or  that  they  formed  the 
church  of  the  preachers  alone. 


20 

4th.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  was  or^ 
ganized  at  a  Convention  of  travelling  preachers  at  Louisville 
Kentucky,  in  1845.  Not  one  layman  was  admitted  into  thait 
body— or  even  voted  for  a  delegate  to  that  body.  Why  was* 
all  this  so  ?  Because  it  is  not  admitted  that  they  have  any 
rights  in  the  premises.  Rev.  Mr.  Hicks  belongs  to  this  school 
of  ministers,  and  therefore  cannot  perceive  any  legality  in  the 
act  of  christian  laymen  organizing  themselves  into  a  church. 
How,  Sir,  is  it  possible  for  one  occupying  the  post  of  Presid- 
ing Elder,  to  be  such  a  novitiate  in  theology,  or  tyro  in  eccle- 
siastical history,  as  not  to  know  that  the  more  than  fifty  per- 
sons who  united  themselves  together  at  the  Ridge  Meeting 
House,  as  christians,  for  the  purpose  of  worshiping  their 
Creator,  legally  organized  themselves  into  a  church,  although 
it  was  not  done  according  to  the  exclusive  principles  of  that 
establishment  to  which  you  belong  ? 

5th.  You  tauntingly  say,  "  he  who  dares  to  acknowledge 
them  as  a  church,  will  show  his  ignorance  of  what  constitutes 
a  New  Testament  Church,  and  will  offer  a  high  insult  to  the 
ministers  and  members  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South  "  Won- 
derful, indeed !  Why,  Sir,  you  are  one  of  the  last  men  on  earth 
to  talk  in  that  wayo  Look  at  your  own  church.  How  was  it 
organized  ? 

6th.  You  assert  in  your  own  natural  way,  "they  are  a  fac- 
tion, but  a  church  they  cannot  be.  What  minister  will  take 
charge  of  them?  Will  any  ?  If  any  be  tempted  to  do  so,  let 
bim  know  that  he  must  have  much  ammunition  for  the  war." 
What  language  is  this  to  flow  from  the  pen  of  a  minister  of 
the  gospel  of  peace!  But  above  all,  what  a  position  ib  it  for  a 
minister  to  occupy  ?  Why,  Sir,  in  the  first  place,  you  are  un- 
willing for  them  to  receive  the  regards  to  which  a  christian 
&ociety  is  certainly  entitled,  as  though  you  had  formally  cursed 


2* 

it 

them,  with  beh,  book,  and  candle.  In  the  next  place,  you 
would  deter  any  minister  from  taking  the  oversight,  and  de- 
claring unto  them  the  word  of  eternal  life — and  who,  I  ask,  in 
heaven  above,  or  in  earth  beneath,  or  in  the  waters  under  the 
earth,  can  agree  with  you  in  these  things,  except  it  be  him 
who  is  called  in  fhe  Greek,  Apollyon,  but  in  the  Hebrew 
tongue,  hath  his  name  Abaddon? 

These  people  now  have  a  minister,  and  are  recognized  as 
a  regularly  organized  Methodist  Protestant  Church,  and  we 
thank  you  for  the  admonition  that  we  "must  have  much  am- 
munition for  the  icar"  Perrnit  us  to  assure  your  reverend 
highness,  that  you  shall  not  be  disappointed  upon  that  score, 
if  you  wish  to  wage  a  war  upon  us. ,;  You  have  supplied  us 
With  a  goodly  amount  in  your  different  publications,  a  part  of 
which  we  have  used  in  these  pages;  but,  apart  from  this  we 
have  a  large  supply  to  draw  upon  from  the  magazine  of  truth. 
Open  your  batteries  as  &oon  as  you  please—we  are  ready. 
>  Mr.  Hicks,  be  patient — we  are  not  dene  with  you  yet. — 
You  have  been  engaged  in  destroying  ths  fair  standing  of 
men  in  this  part  of  the  country,  whose  religious  lives  have  been 
as  pure  and  spotless  as  yours;  therefore,  do  not  complain,  if 
we  exhibit  you  to  the  world,  as  you  exhibit  yourself. 

You  were  opposed  to  the  secession  and  organization  of  a 
church  at  the  Ridge  Meeting  House,  (Mt.  Zion,)  indepen- 
dent of  your  jurisdiction.  It  was  composed  of  men  who 
came  out  from  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  being  determined  to 
think  and  chocse  for  themselves  in  ecclesiastical  matters. — 
They  formed  themselves  into  a  church,  as  they  had  a  right  to 
do,  and,  although  you  voluntarily  asked  the  question  in  your 
publications,  "  what  minister  will  take  charge  of  them  ?  Will 
any  ?  If  any  be  tempted  to  do  so,  let  him  know  that  he  must 
have  much  ammunition  for  the  war."    Yet,  they  concluded, 


21 

.  v« 

(like  christian  people  are  wont  to  do,)  to  send  for  one,  and 
agreed  to  send  for  a  minister  of  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Church,  to  take  charge  of  them,  in  order  to  their  being  regu- 
larly received  into  the  communion  of  that  church.  A  minis- 
ter agreed  to  visit  them  in  this,  their  time  of  need.  One 
might  have  thought  irom  your  profession,  that  you  wqujd  have 
been  glad  that  these  people  should  have  had  the  gospel  preach- 
ed to  theo ;  at  least,  that  you  would  attempt  to  throw  no  bar- 
rier in  the  way.  But  not  so.  You  here,  at  this  poir.t  of  the 
controversy,  commit  an  act  sufficient  to  make  a  popish  Bish- 
op blush.  An  act  standing  alone  in  its  shame,  finding  no 
parallel  in  all  protestantism.  What  is  that  act  ?  Without  hav- 
ing any  acquaintance  with  the  Methodist  Protestant  minister 
or  ministers  who  were  to  come  over  to  the  Ridge  Meeting 
House  to  preach  to  the  new  organized  church,  in  August,  you 
even  went  so  far  as  to  address  them,  (though  strangers  tp  you) 
a  letter  in  order  to  deter  them  from  receiving  that  church  into 
*l  christian  fellowship.''  This  letter  was  handed  to  the  minis- 
ter on  the  road  side,  when  on  his  way  to  Mt.  Zion.  It  lies 
before  me,  and  for  the  benefit  of  all  men,  I  here  copy  its  un- 
blushing address: 

"Buncombe,  Co.  N.  C.  \ 
August  13th.  1851.'  j 

To  the  ministers  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  who 
may  attend  the  meeting  at  the  Iiidge,  (Mt.  Zion  M.  H.)  in  this 
county — instant." 

Our  ministers  were  astonished  to  receive  an  epistle  by  the 
way  side,  from  the  hand  of  a  stranger,  opening  its  harrangue 
in  such  an  ambiguous  strain.  But  upon  reading  the  third 
paragraph  of  this  extraordinary  document,  the  whole  veil  waa 
lifted,  and  the  mystery  was  explained  by  Mr.  Hicks  himself 
Hear  him. 


23 

*  We  have  learned  that  you  intend  to  take  these  seceders 
into  christian  fellowship  with  your  church,  and  give  them  a 
pastor.  This  is  our  apology  for  writing  you.  We  are  at  a 
good  understanding  and  the  best  of  terms  with  your  church, 
nor  do  we  wish  it  to  be  otherwise.  But,  otherwise  it  must  be» 
if  you  take  these  factionists  under  your  pastoral  care."  Now 
Mr.  Hicks,  you  pass  for  a  minister  of  peace,  and  here  you 
have  laid  aside  the  common  rules  of  good  breeding  and  po- 
liteness that  regulate  the  intercourse  of  gentlemen,  (and  cer- 
tainly should  ministers,)  and  rudely  obtruded  a  menace  or 
threat  upon  two  btrange  preachers,  (whom,  perhaps,  you  had 
never  seen,)  of  a  rupture  of  a  good'  understanding  between 
churches,  if  they  ventured  to  "take  these  seceders  into  chris- 
tian fellowship."  What  did  this  mean?  Why  was  your  ani- 
mosity still  raging  against  the  little  band  of  christians  com- 
posing Mt.  Zion  church,  that  you  wished  them  excluded  from 
the  advantages  of  ministerial  services  and  the  ordinances  of 
the  gospel  ?  Again,  I  ask  ycu,  Sir,  had  you,  acting  the  part  of 
a  little  Pope,  on  American  soil,  cursed  this  little  band  of  con* 
scientious  American  christians,  with  bell,  book,  and  candle? 
and  did  you  consider  them  as  excluded  from  the  covenanted 
mercies  of  God,  that  you  thus  labored  to  divest  them  of  such 
gospel  privileges,  and  means  of  grace,  as  they  might  be  able 
to  avail  themselves  of/  Ah!  Sir,  actions  speak  louder  than 
words — and  here  we  have  your  actions  before  us — but  the 
end  is  not  yet.  The  preachers  heeded  not  your  rude  epistle, 
although  you  had  gotten  the  signature  of  Jas.  A.  Reagan, 
Preacher  in  charge  of  Asheville,  to  strengthen  your  own  au- 
thority, or  to  give  it  weight  in  the  case. 

Again,  in  this  famous  epistle  of  yours  to  the  (to  you  un- 
known) ministers,  you  shamelessly  present  another  menace, 
by  asking  the  question,  "and,  is  it  so,  that  principles  of  close 


24 


communion  are  about  to  be  introduced  into  the  Methodist 
family  ?  Yes  if  you  take  those  factionists  it  is  even  so."  Very 
well,  Mr.  [Hicks— if  you  desire  it,  so  far  as  your  authority 
may  go,  it  may  be  possible  for  you  to  establish  it,  so  far  as. 
your  ecclesiastical  dictum  may  command  respect.  Oh  Pope- 
ry! On  what  soil,  and  in  what  clime  has  thy  rude  spirit  not 
been  breathed? 

The  reader  might  suppose  that  this  Rev.  gentleman,  the 
writer  of  so  many  publications,  and  author  of  the  letter  just 
noticed,  would  have  quit  off,  for  a  season  at  least,  and  let  the 
church  at  Mt.  Zion  do  the  best  for  themselves  that  they  could ; 
but  not  so — for  it  is  written  "one  sinner  destroyeth  much 
good...  §o  we  find  him  still  pursuing  his  old  trade,  doging 
the  Mt,  Zion  church,  and  assuming  the  character  of  a  public 
persecutor,  ,  Alas !  for  the  minister. 

The  churcji.at,  Mt.  Zion,  drew  up  a  petition  to  forward  to 
the  Quarterly  Conference,  of  Cleveland  Circuit,  of  the  M.  P. 
Church,  praying,  the  Quarterly  Conference  to  receive  the  Mt- 
Zion  Church  into,  the  Methodist  Protestant  connexion,  as  a 
regularly  organized  Methodist  Protestant  church,  according 
to  discipline.  This  petition  was  signed  by  54  persons  mem- 
bers of  the  society.  But  it  seems  Mr.  Hicks,  although  defeat- 
ed in  all  his  efforts,  was  not  willing  to  abandon  his  old 
trade  of  persecution  by  letter  writing.  Accordingly,  he  ven- 
tures to  address  a  most  extraordinary  epistle  to  the  Quarterly 
Conference,  which  he  safely  forwarded  to  that  body,  and  was 
read  in  open  Conference.  The  object  was  to  defeat  the  recep- 
tion of  the  church  by  the  Quarterly  Conference.  As  he  had 
failed  before,  he  also  failed  this  time.  The  Quarterly  Con- 
ference was  made  up  of  men  who  knew  how  to  do  the  busi° 
ness  of  the  church,  without  the  aid  of  a  Presiding  Elder.— 


25 

That  Rev.  Mr.  Hicks  may  be  fairly  seen,  we  will  give  8ome 
extracts  from  this  famous  epistle. 

It  is  dated:  "  District  Parsonage,  N.  C,  Aug.  28th  185V 
A  nd  addressed,  "  To  the  chairman  and  members  of  the  Metho- 
dist Protestant  Quarterly  Conference.'''  After  giving  an  ac- 
count, in  his  natural  style,  of  the  difficulties  on  Reem's  Creek* 
among  the  Methodists,  concerning  the  order  of  the  Sons  of 
Temperance,  and  intimating  that  circumstances  might  lead 
him  to  address  the  Annual  Conference  cf  the  Methodist  Pro" 
testant  Church,  North  Carolina  District,  upon  the  subject  if 
his  appeal  or  admonition  was  not  heeded,  he  proceeds  thus  : 
"  There  is  another  view  which  should  be  laid  before  you.— 
One  of  the  party.  A.  H.  Brittain,  was  expelled  from  our  church 
not  for  opposing  the  Sons  merely,  as  he  and  some  others  talk, 
but  for  his  wicked  abuse  of  preachers,  (wonderful!)  and  in- 
veighing against  our  Discipline,  #  #  #  #  Another, 
A.  Pickens,  was  in  a  state  of  suspension,  by  committee,  for 
falsehood,  encouraging  schism  in,  and  secession  from  the 
church,  and  an  effort  to  injure  his  brethren  in  the  ministry." 
This  last  clause,  " an  effort  to  injure  his  brethren"  we  invite 
special  attention  to,  because  we  have  examined  the  charges 
and  specifications,  (a  copy  now  lies  before  us)  and  no  such 
clause,  directly  or  indirectly,  is  found  contained  therein.  N6' 
such  an  allegation  was  made  against  Rev.  A,  Pickens,  nor 
will  the  records  show  such  a  thing,  and  yet  this  same  Presid- 
ing Elder,  this  Episcopal  Methodist  parson,  has  the  unblush- 
ing effrontery  to  write  such  a  thing  to  the  Methodist  Protes-  . 
tant  Quarterly  Conference  of  Cleaveland  Circuit.  Surely 

Shakespeare  must  have  had  such  a  character  in  his  eye,  when 
he  wrote : 

"Man,  proud  man,  dressed  in  a  little  brief  authority, 
Plays  such  fantastic  tricks  before  high  heayen, 
As  mike  the  angels  weep." 


This  notable  letter  \yriter  continues :  "  All  these  are  likely 
to  be  received  (as  I  am  told,)  into  your  church,  and  the  last  is 
to  be  the  pastor  of  the  Ridge,  and  other  congregations.  Is  this 
so?  Alas!  if  it  is,  Ts  your  church  going  to  say,  (by  actor 
otherwise,)  that  those  men  are  not  guilty,  as  charged?  Better 
hear  the  testimony  first.  This  you  will  see  I  judge.  The 
public  shall  be  enlightened  on  the  subject,  if  the  Lord  spare 
some  of  us."    This  letter  was  signed  "  William  Hicks." 

Well,  after  all,  this  same  William  Hicks,  has  written  and 
published  so  much,  and  had  shown  such  a  disposition  to 
meddle  with  the  good  name  and  reputation  of  men  whose 
standing  was  as  well,  and  as  favorably  known  as  his  own, 
that  the  Quarterly  Conference  could  not  believe  his  report,  and 
despite  all  his  rude  threats,  the  church;  at  the  Ridge  Meeting 
House,  (Mt.  Zion,)  was  regularly  received,  numbering  54 
members,  33  of  whom  were  females.  What  a  mortifying 
event  it  must  have 'been  to  the  notable  letter  writer,  thai  these 
people  should  now  be  able  to  receive  the  ordinances  of  the 
gospel.  And  now,  Sir,  we  suppose  that  if  you  have  designed 
to  make  your  word  good,  you  will  establish  your  threatened 
system  of  close  communion.  Let  us  see.  How  will  you  un- 
dertake it  ?  Popery  will  hardly  flourish  well  upon  American 
soil.   Bear  that  in  mind. 

How  frail  is  poor  human  nature !  How  easy  is  it  for  some 
men  to  act  the  part  of  tyrants!  And  what  an  illustration  of 
this,  has  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hicks  furnished  us  in  the  whole  course 
of  his  proceedings,  as  brought  to  view  in  these  pages  I  He 
figures  proudly,  and  loudly,  and  boldly,  before  us.  He  affectg 
to  show  something  of  the  wisdom  of  the  serpent,  but  nothing 
of  the  harmlessness  of  the  dove.  He  speaks,  writes,  and 
threatens,  with  all  pompous  authority  of  a  Romish  priest,  but 


27 


exhibits  none  oi  that  "charity  which  hopeth  all  things,  bear- 
eth  all  things;  believeth  all  things"  IJe  professes  to  be  a 
minister  of  the  gospel,  a  herald  of  salvation,  whose  business 
it  is  to  promote  peace  and  good  will  upon  earth,  but  perse- 
cutes even  grey-headed  christians  ;  stigmatizes  and  labors  to 
blacken  the  character,  and  destroy  the  good  name  of  men,  who 
are  as  well  and  as  favorably  known  as  himself. 

We  have  seen  him  in  his  career,  commence  his  crusade 
against  that  grey  headed  minister,  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  first  by 
his  hints  and  innuendoes ;  Secondly,  by  his  published  pamph- 
lets. All  this  failing  to  accomplish  or  effect  his  desired  object, 
he  using  his  subaltern,  Rev.  David  Sullins,  summoned  him 
to  stand  church  trial  upon  allegations  which  are  well  known 
amongst  this  community,  to  be  of  the  most  frivolous  character, 
and  to  stand  this  trial  too,  before  David  Sullins,  who  was  the 
judge,  selected  the  jury,  and  Was  also  active  prosecutor  in  the 
case!!  and  whilst  the  old  minister  was  at  home  sick,  unable 
to  attend,  Judge  Sullins  and  his  court  expelled  him  from  the 
churchy  as  the  judge  was  pleased  to  publish  abroad !  A  judge 
with  power  to  select  the  jury,  and  also  act  as  prosecutor  and 
witness  in  the  case!!  And  all  this  done  too  in  republican 
North  Carolina!!  But  was  there  any  republicanism  in  such  a 
proceeding?  Surely  none — not  a  particle.  But  it  is  so  easy 
to  convict  in  this  way !  therefore,  the  judge  accomplished  his 
object  for  once.  The  man  may  have  gloried  in  this  act,  but, 
alas!  alas!!  how  debasing  to  the  minister ! 

Citizens  of  republican  America,  can  you,  in  the  fear  of  God, 
approve  in  your  consciences  of  such  conduct  as  that  exhibited 
by  this  clerical  aristocrat?  Can  you  tolerate  in  your  feelings, 
such  principles  and  such  practices  as  he  has  been  acting  out 
among  us  ?  Principles  and  practices,  perfectly  consistent  with 
a  Romish  Priest,  or  Jesuit,  but  always  abominable  and  dis- 


28 

•gusting  when  visible  in  the  course  of  a  professed  minister  el 
the  religion  of  the  meek  and  lowly  Jesus.  Why  was  the  soil 
of  our  native  land  baptized  with  the  blood  of  our  fathers  ? 
Was  it  not  to  purchase  liberty,  civil  and  religious  ?  Was  it 
not  a  high  price  too,  paid  for  such  liberty  ?  Religious  liberty  1 
How  sweet  the  word!!  How  dear-bought  that  right!  Let  no 
man  invade  it.  None  but  a  tyrant  will,  for  none  but  tyrants 
are  the  enemies  of  liberty. 

But  hark!  what  do  I  hear?  Tidings  of  another  pamphlet! 
Yes,  another  pamphlet.  From  whence  does  it  come  ?  And 
why  does  it  come  ?  It  comes  from  Rev.  William  Hicks — and 
it  comes  because  he  has  heretofore  failed  to  destroy  the  reli- 
gious reputation  and  standingof  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  or  to  im- 
pair, the  confidence  his  religious  friends  and  neighbors  have 
Jong  reposed  in  him.  Therefore,  this  is  the  third  pamphlet, 
besides  a  circular,  and  one  Newspaper  essay,  that  Mr.  Hicks 
has  aimed  at  that  old  minister.  Verily,  Mr.  Hicks  must  be 
in  a  predicament — for,  certainly  no  man  having  truth  on  his 
side,  has  ever  been  compelled  to  resort  to  so  many  publica- 
tions to  defend  his  own  conduct  among  his  neighbors,  and 
against  a  neighbor  who  does  not  live  more  than  two  miles  off, 
when  the  old  minister  has  never. had,  up  to  this  time,  the  first 
paragraph  published  concerning  W.  Hicks. 

But,  here  lies  the  mystery :  Hick!s  pamphlets  have  recoiled 
on  his  own  head,  and  in  his  madness  and  confusion,  he  wrig- 
gles and  flounders  to  save  himself  by.  traducing  that  old  and 
well  known  minister  of  the  gospel,  Andrew  Pickens,  and  hear 
his  plea — oh,  wonderful  to  tell!  he  says  in  the  introduction  to 
his  third  pamphlet,  £1  have  but  two  objects.  First.  To  disa- 
buse the  public  mind,  so  that  the  innocent  be  not  blamed  un- 
justly— and,  Secondly.  The  promotion  of  God's  cause,  as  ths 


uUirnatum  "*'  Now,  let  any  man  read  this  same  pamphlet 
over  and  tell  us  then  if  he  can,  as  a  christian  man,  how  either 
God's  cause  can  be  promoted  thereby,  or  the  public  mind  dis- 
abused. Why  so  far  as  the  author  is  concerned,  this  pamph- 
let is  a  disgrace  to  the  minister,  and  a  reproach  to  the  christian 
religion.  The  cause  of  God  promoted  by  villifying  Rev.  A. 
Pickens,  a  minister  of  more  than  forty  years  standing,  Maj.  A. 
H.  Brittain,  and  P.  W.  Edwards?  But  this  is  one  of  Mr. 
Hick's  methods  of  promoting  the  cause  of  God.  His  third 
pamphlet,  which  we  now  proceed  to  notice,  is  entitled  "The 
Pilot's  hand  proffered  but  would  have  been  more  appropri- 
ately named,  if  it  had  been  called  by  its  author,  the  "Dirt 
Cart  f  for  it  must  be  apparent  to  every  reader,  that  it  abounds 
with  the  back-alley  slang,  from  the  beginning  to  end.  A  man 
of  good  breeding,  would  write  as  a  gentleman  ;  but  no  gen- 
tleman was  ever  possessed  of  a  fondness  to  villify  and  traduce 
the  character  of  a  man  who  was  better  known,  and  longer 
known  than  himself,  dfld  whose  usefulness  had  been  s>o  much 
greater  than  his  own.  Of  Mr.  Hick's  raising,  we  know  noth- 
ing. But  his  conduct  is  before  us;  and,  inasmuch  as  actions 
speak  a  stronger  language  than  words,  we  can  only  judge  the 
tree  by  its  fruit.  Mr.  Hicks  labors  throughout  his  third  pamph- 
let, as  he  had  done  in  all  his  others,  to  pouj.fuil  vials  of  his 
wrath  upon  the  head  of  Rev.  A.  Pickens.  Rev.  A.  Pickens 
had  offended  his  ilev.  Highness,  and  therefore,  there  could  be 
no  mitigation  of  his  offence.  The  case  reminds  us  very  much 
of  an  anecdote  we  once  heard : 

A  man  went  to  the  priest  to  confess  his  sins.  He  confessed 
to  many  of  various  shades  of  character  and  grade  of  offense, 
and  the  priest  readily  forgave  each  sin  and  offense  against 

*  On  page  23,  he  says  :  "  I  have  been  driven  to  make  this  publication  in. 
self-defence."    jilas!  alas!! 


30 


every  body,  as  he  proceeded  in  detail  But,  at  length,  says 
the  man,  "I  have  stolen  a  ram."  -'From  whom  did  you  stea: 
it,"  demanded  the  priest  ?"  "  From  a  priest "  replied  the  man, 
"  From  what  priest  did  you  take  it?"  he  was  asked.  "  I  stole 
it  from  you,"  replied  the  man.  "  That  is  an  awful  sin,"  replied 
the  priest,  "to  steal  from  me."  "You  cannot  be  forgiven.; 
there  is  no  forgivness  for  you,  and  you  are  certain  to  be 
damned."  So  in  the  case  of  father  Pickens,  he  has  offended 
the  priest,  the  Presiding  Elder,  therefore,  he  becomes  worse 
than  all  other  sinners.  In  this  third  pamphlet  of  Mn  Hick's, 
which  we  now  proceed  to  notice,  the  author  becomes  guilty  of 
a  piece  of  work  of  which  we  have  never  known  a  minister  of 
the  gospel  of  peace  to  be  guilty.  No,  nor  have  we  ever  heard 
or  read  of  such  a  thing  before.  An  act  so  derogatory  to  the 
character  of  a  minister  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus! 

The  act  is  this,  and  bespeaks  its  own  shame.  Rev.  W. 
Hicks  publishes  in  his  famous  pamphlet  what  he  is  pleased  to 
call  the  "  charges  and  specifications*  together  with  the  evi- 
dence given,  as  well  as  not  given,  in  the  case  of  Rev.  A.  Pick, 
ens.  And  now,  in  defense  of  the  truth,  we  shall  proceed  to 
take  up  and  examine  these  charges  and  show  by  the  evidence 
as  brought  forward  by  Mr.  Hictts  himself,  that  the  accused 
was  innocent  of  the  allegations,  and  if  blame  falls  upon  Hicks 
and  his  party,  we  hope  they  will  not  blame  us  for  it,  but  will 
settle  the  case  with  the  "  offended  priest."  Here,  then  follows 
the  proceedings. 

"Charges  against  the  Rev.  A.  Pickens." 

"  The  Rev.  Andrew  Pickens,  L.  E.,  in  the  Bumsville  Circuit, 
Methodist  E.  Church,  South,  is  charged  as  follows,  viz  : 

1st.  With  falsehood. 

Specification.  In  denying  that  he  publicly  charged  that 
some  of  the  members  of  the  Reem's  Creek  Division  of  the 


31 


Sons  of  Temperance, had  been  guilty  of  the  " blackest  crimes}' 
and  had  "stated  things  about  him  which  tfiey  knew  to  be  false." 

Before  we  proceed  to  the  next  specification,  we  shall  weigh 
the  evidence  upon  this,  and  thus  proceed  in  Retail. 

Now  be  it  known,  that  Mr.  Hicks  had,  in  June,  1851,  writ- 
ten and  published  a  "hand  bill"  in  which  he  declares,  that  he 
was  ready  to  prove,  "1st.  That  the  Rev.  A.  Pickens  made  the 
heavy  charge  above  named,  against  some  of  the  Sons  in  this 
community,  on  the  5th  ult.,  in  the  hearing  of  a  considerable 
assembly." 

Again,  on  page  24,  Mr.  Hicks  says:  "It  is  fair  to  presume 
that  the  hand  bill  was  made  the  basis  of  charges  against  father 
Pickens."  Well,  so  far,  so  good.  But  here  is  more  light  still 
upon  the  case.  Hicks  informs  us  in  a  certificate  of  his  own, 
written  to  be  read  or  used  upon  the  trial  but  which  was  not 
brought  forward,  (no  doubt  for  the  benefit  of  his  own  reputa- 
tion,) that  upon  the  day  of  the  trial  of  PAaj.  Brittain,  he  told 
Rev.  A.  Pickens,  that  "the  time  had  come  when  he  must 
church  me,  or  I  would  church  him."  Said  certificate  is  given 
by  Mr.  Hicks,  on  page  29,  of  his  pamphlet. 

Now  then,  the  case  comes  plainly  before  us.  Hicks  has 
told  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  "you  must  church  me,  or  1  will  church 
you."  Hicks  has  published  this  same  specification,  No.  1, 
which  comes  foremost  in  the  charges  in  the  famous  "  hand 
bill."  The  hand  bill  is  disbelieved  by  many,  and  its  allega- 
tions regarded  as  falsehoods.  Hence  the  reputation  of  Hicks 
becomes  endangered,  and  he  of  course,  must  fall,  if  A.  Pick- 
ens cannot  be  destroyed.  But  it  is  resolved  to  sacrifice  the 
old  white  headed  minister — that  would  stay  the  falling  repu- 
tation of  the  Presiding  Elder.  The  hands  are  all  ready,  and 
the  plan  is  soon  made  out.  Rev.  David  Sullins,  preacher  lit 
charge,  cites  Rev.  A.  Pickens  to  trial,  but  no  name  is  append 


3;^ 


ed  to  the  citation  as  accuser,  and  we  are  left  with  the  evidence 
before  us  furnished  by  the  Presiding  Elder  to  regard  WniM 
Hicks  himself,  as  the  real  prosecutor,  and  David  Sullins  as  the 
pliant  cat's  paw  in  his  hands;  a  most  natural  conclusion  this? 
for  travelling  preachers  are  indebted  to  ihe  Presiding  Elder 
for  their  appointment,  so  far  as  favorable  ones  are  concerned. 

But  a  very  few  days  were  allowed  brother  Pickens  to  pre- 
pare for  trial  according  to  W.  Hick's  account,  for  says  he> 
"about  the  last  of  July,  the  Rev.  David  Sullins  cited  the  Rev' 
A.  Pickens  to  attend  at  Salem  Meeting  House.,  on  the  6th  day 
of  August,  to  answer  to  the  above  charges,  before  a  committee 
of  Local  Elders." 

Bnrther  Pickens  being  confined  at  the  time  by  a  spell  of 
sickness,  was  unable  to  attend.  Of  this  fact,  David  Sullins 
was  well  aware,  but  having  his  overseer's  work  to  do,  he  went 
ahead. 

.  A  committee  was  formed  of  Rev.  Jacob  Weaver,  Rev.  John 
Reynolds,  and  Rev.  J.  L,  Burnett. 

The  committee  [then  heard  the  exparte  testimony,  or  one 
side  of  the  case,  and  suspended  the  Rev.  A.  Pickens  until  the 
ensuing  Quarterly  Conference,  when  brother  Pickens,  having 
recovered,  to  some  extent,  his  health,  appeared  before  that  body 
and  produced  his  testimony. 

Now,  in  order  to  defend  truth  against  falsehood,  in  review- 
ing the  specifications  and  testimony,  we  shall  produce  Rev 
Picken's  testimony,  which  he  presented  before  the  Quarteily 
Conference,  upon  each  point  in  the  case  as  tried  before  Da- 
vid Sullins. 

We  now  proceed  with  the  charges  and  evidence.  In  order 
to  keep  the  reader's  mind  well  guarded,  we  shall  cite  again  the 
specification,  already  written  down  on  another  pagp.  Here 
il  is : 


as 

*  *  *      ■ '.  t »  -  • 

*  Specification  1st  In  denying  that  he  publicly  charged  that 

some  of  the  members  of  Reem's  Creek  Division,  Sons  of 

Temperance,  had  been  guilty  of  the  "blackest  crimes?  and 

had  stated  things  about  him  which  they  knew  to  be  false** 

Now  for  the  testimony. 

"Evidence  for  the  Church." 

'•No.  1.  Rev.  John  S.  Weaver,  was  examined.  He  was 
questioned  as  to  a  charge  that  Rev.  A.  Pickens  had  made 
against  members  of  Reem's  Creek  Division,  to  wit:  that  they 
had  been  guilty  of  the  "blackest  crimes"  He  answered  that 
Rev.  A.  Pickens  '.old  him  that  he  did  not  make  the  charge. 
A  certificate  given  by  J.  S.  Weaver,  was  then  read,  concern? 
ing  the  above  charge,  and  he  was  questioned  as  to  his  writing 
it.   He  answered  in  the  affirmative.   Here  is  the  certificate: 

"We  do  hereby  certify  that  sometime  since  the  trial  of  A. 
H.  Britain,  we  called  on  the  Rev.  A.  Pickens  for  an  explana- 
tion of  the  heavy  charge  made  against  some  of  the  members 
of  Reem's  Creek  Division,  at  the  aforenamed  trial,  and  he, 
the  said  Pickens,  denied  having  made  any  such  charge;  but 
stated  he  only  meant  such  things  might  be  done,  as  he  named; 
and  he  also  said  that  he  had  not  reference  on  that  occasion  to 
anything  particularly,  or  to  any  body;  and  added  that  he  had 
not  explained  to  brother  Hicks,  that  he  had  reference  to  any- 
thing. J.  S.  WEAVER, 

W.  C.  GARRISON. 

June  19th,  185l:, 

"  No.  2.  W.  C.  Garrison,  was  questioned  as  to  whether  Rev* 
A.  Pickens  had  denied  making  the  charge  against  the  Sons  of 
Temperance,  as  set  forth ;  who  answered  that  he  was  in  con* 
pany  with  Rev.  J.  S.  Weaver,  and  conversed  with  him  in  bis 
testimony,  He  also  acknowledged  the  aforesaid  certificate  to 
be  bis" 

i 


34 


Our  remarks.  Let  the  reader  bear  in  mind  that  the  certifi- 
cates of  these  two  gentlemen  bears  date,  June  19th,  and  the 
charges  served  on  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  is  dated,  July  25 — there- 
fore, it  becomes  at  once  apparent  that  this  certificats  was  not 
written  out  for  the  trial,  but  must  have  been  made  out  for 
some  other  purpose ;  at  least  if  written  for  the  trial,  its  date 
proves  that  it  was  written  before  Rev.  A.  Pickens  was  chaiged* 
But  be  it  as  it  may,  its  character  for  purity,  stands  arraigned 
by  all  the  circumstances. 

But  in  what  character  did  J.  S.  Weaver  and  J.  C.  Garri- 
son visit  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  at  his  house,  and  "call  upon  him  for 
an  explanation  of  the  heavy  ctuir-ge  made  against  some  of  the 
Reem's  Creek  Division  V  They  could  not  have  done  so  in  the 
character  of  members  of  the  M.  E.  Church  South.  If  they 
did,  they  were  "busy-bodies  in  other  men's  waiters  f>  for  such 
an  allegation  would  not  concern  the  church,  but  the  Sons  only. 
If  they  called  in  the  character  of  the  Sons  of  Temperance, 
and  wrote  out  their  certificate,  thirty-five  days  before  the 
charges  were  preferred  against  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  why  here  is 
weighty  proof  of  deep  corruption  and  malice  aforethought  on 
their  part,  and  hence  their  whole  testimony  should  be  set  aside0 
For  as  much  as  the  certificate  bears  date  thirty-five  days  be- 
fore the  charges,  it  might.be  supposed  that,  let  the  certificate 
be  written  under  what  circumstances  it  might,  they  would  still 
adhere  to  it  when  called  upon  on  trial. 

Now  bear  in  mind  gentle  reader,  that  Rev.  A.  Pickens  is 
not  charged  with  designating  any  particular  person  among 
the  Sons.  But  here  lies  the  mystery  and  secret  of  the  whole 
affair— Mr.  Hic/cs  pamphlets,  one  of  ivhich  had  been  published 
by  the  Sons,  were  by  many,  regarded  as  containing  false  state- 
ments, particularly  concerning  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  the  influence 
of  the  Presiding  Elder  being  on  the  wane,  when  he  heard  the 


old  man  in  his  speech,  in  defence  of  Maj.  Brittain,  use  such 
an  expression  as  this,  which  was  testified  to  by  fifteen  witnesses^ 
viz:  "there  have  been  things  published  against  me  as  Hack  as 
midnight,  and  brethren  you  know  UP  Mr,  Hicks  takes  the 
alarm,  for  guilt  needs  no  accusor,  and  forsooth,  attempts  to 
show  that  the  old  white  headed  minister  meant  some  of  the  Sons 
as  the  authors  of  such  baseness.   No  doubt  he  felt  so. 

But  how  had  J.  S.  Weaver  and  J.  C.  Garrison  heart)  that 
Rev.  A.  Pickens  had  charged  the  Sons  with  the  "blackest 
crimes"  that  they  questioned  him  on  the  subject?  From  W0 
Hicks,  undoubted^  for  he  was  the  first  one  to  alledge  such  a 
thing,  according  to  his  own  showing. 

Fortunately  for  the  cause  of  truth,  Mr.  Hicks  has  seen  pro- 
per to  publish  in  his  third  pamphlet,  a  certificate  which  he 
says  he  had  given,  but  was  mislaid  at  the  time  of  trial.  Here 
it  is.    Now  watch  it  closely.   Some  truth  leaks  out  through  it. 

"July  SOlh,  1851. 

"1  was  at  the  church  trial  of  Maj.  A.  Brittain,  and  heard 
the  Rev.  Andrew  Pickens  state  in  his  defence  of  said  Brittain, 
(in  alluding  to  the  Sons,)  that  they  had  been  guilty,  (this  was 
the  idea,")  [mark  that  language  gentle  reader,  he  says  it  was 
the  idea,  not  the  ivords  used,]  of  the  "  blackest  crimes,"  and 
"stated  things  about  him  which  they  knew  to  be  false,"  I  told 
him  at  the  time,  that  I  would  hold  him  responsible  for  the 
charge,  and  that  if  he  had  reference  to  the  "  Way  the  Wind 
Blows,"  I  would  prove  every  word  of  it  to  be  true."  [See 
how  this  Presiding  Elder  attempts  to  bring  the  difficulties  of 
tbe  Sons  of  Temperance,  into  the  church.]  u  When  the  Rev° 
J.  A.  Reagan  requested  the  audience  to  withdraw  from  the 
church,  for  the  committee  to  make  out  its  report,  I  took  brother 
Pickens  around  the  church,  and  called  on  him  to  explain  to 
what  he  had  reference  when  he  made  the  above  charge.  I 


n 

^hen  told  him  that  the  time  had  come  when  he  must  churebk 
me,  or  I  would  church  him,  that  I  would  rather  he  wou!4 
thurch  me."  [Alas !  alas ! !  for  the  rights  of  a  church  mem* 
ber.]  "In  reference  to  my  demand  for  an  explanation,  he  al- 
Juded  to  things  which  had  been  written  about  him.  I  told  him 
the  charge  which  he  had  made  was  very  severe,  and  repeated 
part  of  it — the  "  blackest  crimes."  (I  had  written  down  the 
charge  made,  immediately  after  he  made  the  statement.)  He 
said  "what  do  you  understand  to  be  the  blackest  crimes V' 
I  answered,  "  murder,  adultery,  and  such  like."  He  replied* 
^and  lying."  I  said  yes,  and  "wilful  lying."  I  then  asked 
him  "if  he  thought  any  of  us,  (the  Sons)  had  wilfully  lied?'* 
(Mark  that  gentle  reader,  the  Sons  are  cunningly  brought  in 
though  they  had  not  been  named.  Guilt  cannot  be  still.]  He 
did  not  answer  the  question  in  a  direct  manner,  [Here  a  little 
truth  at  once  leaks  out,]  but  proceeded  to  point  out  certain 
items  in  our  pamphlet  (above  mentioned,)  which  he  said  were 
false  c  One  was  where  the  pamphlet  charges  that  he  made  an 
attack  on  certain  young  ladies,  by  enquiry  and  reprimand, 
page  3rd.  Another  was  where  the  pamphlet  speaks  of  a  com- 
pany of  approvers  to  the  Sons,  as  being  at  the  church  when 

the  Sons  arrived. — (Page  4.)  Another  was  where  the  pamph- 
let  represents  or  rather  conjectures,  [Hear  that  will  you — conr 

jeciures!  What  a  dodge!!]  that  the  said  Pickens  and  the 
company  met  by  "  express  understanding,"  to  oppose  the  Sona 
and  are  spoken  of  as  a  party  in  contradistinction  to  the  Sons. 
—(Pages  4th  and  5ih.)  And  another  was,  where  the  pamph- 
let represents  the  said  Pickens  and  Maj.  Brittain  as  making 
friends. — (Page  12th.)  These  are  the  items  to  which  he  re- 
ferred, in  explanation  to  me,  when  such  explanation  was  de- 
manded. [Let  the  reader  notice  this  last  sentence  particular- 
ly, for  we  shall  sift  it.]    He  afterwards  gave  the  same  expla- 


n 

nation  (in  substance)  just  above  the  road  leading  from  this  to 
Cc}.  Alexander's  near  the  little  branch,  beyond  A.  j.  Gill's. 
He  represented  that  these  items  were  false,  and  when  I  asked 
Jiim  time  and  again,  if  he  believed  I  had  wilfully  lied  in 
writing  those  items?  he  would  not  answer,  either  yes  or  no; 
put  still  stated  that  they  were  false.  [Notice  that  gentle  reader, 
ike  old  preacher  would  give  no  explanation.]  With  regard  to 
the  first  item,  (page  3rd,)  he  said  he  made  no  attack  upon  the 
young  ladies  as  charged.  With  regard  to  the  second,  (p.  4th) 
he  said  he  did  not  suppose  that  the  "company  in  question 
was  nearer  than  Andy  Gills,  when  the  Sons  arrived."  In  ref- 
erence to  the  third,  (p.  4th  and  5th,)  he  thought  it  unjust,  (this 
was  the  substance,)  to  associate  him  with  dram-drinkers  and 
drunkards,  as  the  pamphlet  did ;  (all  decent  men  would  think 
so  too,)  and  said  there  was  no  understanding  among  those  who 
met  there,  that  the  Sons  were  to  be  opposed,  or  that  he  was 
going  to  oppose  the  organization  of  the  Sons  at  the  church; 
but  finally  said,  that  Gill  may  have  known  that  he  was  going 
there  that  evening,  \yith  regard  to  the  fourth,  (p.  12th)  he 
said  that  he  and  Brittain  had  never  been  enemies,  and,  there- 
fore, could  not  haye  made  "  friends  "  (Many  other  things  were 
said,  which  do  not  bear  on  the  point  under  consideration — the 
most  of  which  I  could  state  were  it  necessary.)  The  forego- 
ing I  regarded,  at  the  time,  and  have  done  ever  since,  as  an 
explanation  of  the  heavy  charges  made  against  the  Sons  in 
his  defense  of  Brittain ;  [Mark  this  sentence  reader,  he  says 
be  regarded  it  as  an  explanation  of  the  heavy  charge,  &c,  but 
dce3  not  say  it  was  given  as  such.  Alas,  for  such  testimony.] 
as  I  called  for  an  explanation,  and  he  gave  the  items  of  the 
pamphlet,  (already  referred  to,)  in  reply  to  my  inquiry. 

I  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  substantially  correct,  and  I  am 
persuaded  that  brother  Pickens  knows  it  to  be  so. 

WM.  HICKS." 


Who  has  ever  read  such  a  certificate  as  the  one  above  ?— 
Now  we  propose  to  show  that  the  Rev.  W.  Hicks  is  guilty  of 
falsehood,  by  what  he  has  recorded  wi'h  his  own  pen,  and  if 
he  does  contradict  himself,  of  course  his  testimony  should  be 
set  aside  as  false.    Let  the  reader  judge. 

This  certificate  of  Mr.  Hicks,  is  recorded  in  his  pamphlet 
in  order  to  sustain  the  2nd  specification  of  charge  1st.,  but  was 
written  out  to  sustain  several  of  the  allegations,  the  first  more 
particularly,  as  the  reader  may  see.  Rev.  Mr.  Hicks  it  seems 
was  present  at  the  trial  and  gave  evidence  before  the  commit- 
tee.   Here  is  his  evidence : 

"Rev.  Wm.  Hicks  was  questioned,  as  to  whether  the  Rev. 
A.  Pickens  did  make  the  explanation,  who  says  that  he  did; 
and  that  lie  said  he  had  reference  to  certain  items  in  the 
pamphlet  entitled  the  "  Way  the  Wind  Blows,"  which  items 
were  mentioned  by  Rev.  Wm.  Hicks,  to  the  committee." 

Here  then  the  reader  will  find  this  testimony  of  Mr.  Hick$y 
given  before  the  committee,  does  not  agree  with  his  certificate0 
Let  us  now  sift  his  evidence,  and  see  what  it  really  does  weigh. 
In  his  certificate  he  says,  "in  reference  to  my  demand  for  an 
explanation,  he  alluded  to  things  which  had  been  written 
about  him.''  Mark  that  reader,  Mr.  Hicks  says/'  he  alluded 
to  things  which  had  been  written  about  him."  Now  I  ask 
what  man  of  truth  or  of  common  sense,  would,  or  could  call 
an  allusion,  an  explanation,  when  an  explanation  had  been 
demanded?  None  would  dare  do  it.  Again,  Mr.  Hicks  says 
in  the  same  part  of  his  certificate,  "1  then  asKed  him  if  he 
thought  any  of  us,  (the  Sons,)  had  wilfully  lied  ?  He  did  not 
answer  the  question  in  a  direct  manner."  Here  then  reader  is 
evidence  offered  us,  that  should  fully  prove  to  every  unbiased 
mind,  that  Rev.  A.  Pickens  did  refuse  to  make  an  explanation, 
to  Rev.  W.  Hicks,  when  the  latter  demanded  it  of  the  former. 


39 


Again.  W  Hicks  does  not  dare  to  tell  uc,  neither  in  hU  cer« 
tificate,  nor  in  the  testimony  before  the  committee,  that  Rev. 
A.  Pickens  either  said,  or  admitted,  that  any  reply  that  he 
made  to  W.  Hick's  demand  for  an  explanation,  was  even  any 
portion,  part,  or  syllable  of  explanation.  And  yet  this  same 
Methodist  Presiding  Elder,  has  the  daring  effrontery  to  say 
before  the  committee,  "he  did?  But,  hold  on  Mr.  Hicks,  we 
are  not  done  with  you  yet.  We  will  draw  the  noose  a  little 
tighter.  In  order  that  you  and  all  the  rest  of  mankind  may 
see  the  ugliness  of  your  own  testimony,  we  will  arraign  its 
contradictions  here,  in  three  verses,  as  though  it  were  framed 
in  a  glass  for  inspection.    1  begin  with  the  certificate. 

1st.  "I  took  brother  Pickens  around  the  church,  and  called 
on  him  to  explain  to  what  he  had  reference,  when  he  made 
the  above  charge.  #  #  #  1  then  asked  him  if  he  thought 
any  of  us  (the  Sons,)  had  wilfully  lied.  He  did  not  answer 
the  qnestion  in  direct  manner." 

2nd.  I  asked  him,  time  and  again,  if  he  believed  I  had 
wilfully  lied,  in  writing  those  items?  He  would  not  answer 
yes  or  no,  but  stated  they  were  false.  #  #  #  The  forego- 
ing I  regarded  at  the  time,  and  have  done  ever  since,  as  an 
explanation  of  the  heavy  charge  made  against  the  Sons  in  his 
defense  of  Mdj.  Britlain." 

[Now  to  the  testimony  before  the  Committee.] 

3rd.  "Rev.  Wm,  Hicks  was  questioned  as  to  whether  the 
Rev.  A,  Pickens  did  make  the  explanation,  who  says  that  he 
did,  and  said  that  he  had  reference  to  certain  items  in  the 
pamphlet,  entitled  the  "  Way  the  Wind  Blows." 

Now,  what  jury  of  impartial  men,  would,  for  a  moment  be- 
lieve the  testimony  of  such  a  witness  as  we  have  shown  Rev, 
W.  Hicks  to  be?  None.  His  testimony  would  be  set  aside* 
and  scattered  to  the  winds  as  unworthy  of  credit.   But  we 


46 

drop  him  for  the  present  and  take  up  other  evidence  in  the 
case.  Let  the  reader  bear  in  mind  that  Rev.  W.  Hicks  is  the 
first  man  that  complained  of  Rev.  A.  Picken's  remarks  in  his 
defense  of  Maj.  Brittain,  And  Mr.  Hicks  stales  in  the  fore 
part  of  his  certificate,  that  he,  (Pickens,)  said  (in  alluding  to 
the  Sons,)  that  they  had  been  guilty,  (this  was  the  idea)  of  the 
"  blackest  crimes."  Mr.  Hicks  does  not  say  that  such  was  the 
language,  but  he  says,  "this  was  the  idea."  Now  mark  how 
the  witnesses  chime  in,  and  see  how  the  scholars  attempt  to 
outstrip  the  schoolmaster. 

No.  3.  "  The  certificate  of  the  Rev.  James  A  Reagan,  was 
read,  which  testifies  that  at  the  trial  of  A.  H.  Brittain,  the  Rev. 
A.  Pickens  did  make  the  charge,  that  some  of  the  members  of 
Reem's  Creek  Division,  had  done,  or  been  guilty  of  things  of 
the  "blackest  crime,  and  stated  things  about  him  which  they 
knew  to  be  false," 

Neither  date  nor  signature  is  attached  to  this  certificate.— 
Who  ever  heard  of  such  a  paper  among  religrous  people !  Its 
very  character  should  kill  its  credit. 

No.  4.  "  The  certificate  of  Samuel  Smith  was  read.  We 
do  hereby  certify  that  we  were  at  the  trial  of  A.  H.  Brittain, 
in  last  month,  and  heard  the  Rev.  A.  Pickens  say,  (in  alluding 
to  the  Sons,  as  we  understood  him,)  that  they  had  done,  or 
been  guilty  of  things,  of  the  blackest  crimes,  and  stated  things 
about  him  which  they  knew  to  be  false. 

S.  SMITH,  and  others. 

June,  1851." 

Our  remarks.  The  above  certificate  all  honest  men  ought 
to  condemn,  for  the  following  reasons:  1st.  It  bears  date  in 
June.  2nd.  Rev.  A.  Pickens  was  not  charged  uri&l  25th  July. 
3rd.  The  certificate  of  course  was  not  written  to  oe  presented 
tupon  the  trial,  if  fair  play  was  intended,  for  it  bears  date  be- 


fore  the  charges,  4th.  The  words  l'  and  ot/ie  are  .add  ed  on 
by  'Mr.  Hicks  after  Mr.  Smith's  name,  but  he  does  not  give  the 
quotation  credit.  Therefore,  this  certificate  proves  nothing 
but  the  trick  of  a  party,  and  is  entitled  to  no  credit  in  its 
place.  , 

No.  5,  "Philip  Hunter  was  questioned as  to,  whether  .the 
Rev.  A.  Pickens  made  the  above  charge ;  to  which  he  an§wer= 
ed  in  the  affirmative.  To  further  questions  as  to  the  precise 
words  of  the  charge,  he  answered  that  his  understanding  was 
that  they,  (the  Sons,)  &c,  had  been  guilty  of  crimes  of  the 
blackest  dye?  &c. 

j  Our  remarks.  Observe  how  this  witness  attempts  to  chime 
in  with  Mr.  Hic^s,  nor  does  their  testimony  agree— -for  Hicks 
said  in  his  certificate,  he  "  heard  the  Rev.  A.  Pickens  state  in, 
his  defense  of  said  Brittain,  {in  alluding'  to  the  Sons)  that  they 
had  been  guilty ,  (t,his  was  the  idea,)  of  the  blackest  crimes." 
And  now  Philip  Hunter  when  questioned,  as  to  the  precise 
words  of  the  charge,  answers  that  ,tie  understood  those  words 
to  be,  i(they  had  been  guilty  of  crimes  ^of  the  blackest  dye?-— 
Neither  does*  their  witnesses  agree.  Therefore,  Philip  Hunter's 
testimony  should  bo  set  aside,  for  the  scholar  has  outstripped 
the  schoolmaster. 

No.  6.  <(  J.  R.  Weaver  was  questioned,  who  corroborated 
the  above  charge." 

No.  7.  Allen  Fox  was  questioned,  who  corroborated  the 
above  charge." 

Our  remarks.  ;  We  cafl  the  reader's  special  attentiop  ,  to 
these  two  witnesses  just  quoted.  W.  Hicks  says  in  his  pamph- 
let they  *< corroberated  the  above  change"  and  marks,, with  quo- 
tation point?,  the  whole  sentence  as  though  quoted  from  the 
minutes  of  trial.  Now,  if  the  Secretary  to  the  committee  of 
trial  did  pen  down  the  evidence  of  these  two  witnesses  pre* 


42 


cieely  as  quoted  by  Mr.  Hicks,  it  certainly  furnishes  conclu- 
sive testimony  of  the  deepest  corruption  possible  on;  the  part 
of  the  committee  and  its  chairman — for  a  Secretary  has  no 
earthly  right  in  taking  down  testimony  to  say  what  is  "cor- 
roborated" and  what  is  not.  That  right  belongs  to  the  com- 
mittee alone.  The  business  of  the  Secretary  is  to  record  the 
testimony  as  given,  and  not  to  assert  what  is  proved,  or  "  cor- 
roborated"  So,  upon  tKe  principles  of  common  justice,  what 
is  recorded  of  these  two  witnesses  should  be  set  aside. 

No.  8.  "  H.  P.  Corn  was  questioned  as  the  same  charge 
who  corroberated  the  same ;  and  also  testified  that  the  certify 
cate  of  "  Smith  and  others,"  is  substantially  true." 

Our  remarks.  A  very  apt  witness!  But  what  sort  of  com- 
pany do  we  find  him  in?  The  Secretary  again  says,  he  "cor- 
roberated the  same,  and  also  testified  that  the  certificate  of 
"Smith  and  others,  is  substantially  true."  The  committee 
should  have  said  this,  and  not  the  Secretary.  Nor  had  the 
committee  a  right  to  say  so  until  all  the  evidence  in  the  case 
had  been  heard.  Where  such  foul  corruption  is  shown,  the 
evidence  of  H.  P.  Corn,  should  also  be  set  aside. 

No.  9.  "  Rev.  J.  S.  Weaver  was  questioned  as  to  the  truth 
of  the  charge,  who  stated  that  in  the  course  of  his  defense,  he 
spoke  of  his  (Rev.  A.  Pickens')  own  case,  and  then  said  in 
reference  to  the  Sons,  that  they  had  been  guilty  of  the  "  blackest 
crimes"  &c. 

No.  10.  "  P  Roberts  was  questioned,  as  to  whether  the  Rev. 
A  'Pickens  made  the  aforesaid  charge,  who  testified  to  the 
same." 

No.  11.  V0\  C.  Garnson  was  questioned,  who  corroberated 
the  same." 

Our  remarks:  ban  the  reader  tell  what  the  witness,  P. 
Roberts  did  testify  1  No,  he  cannot.    The  Secretary  says,  "he 


43 


vyas  questioned  concerning  the  afore  said  charge,  who  testified 
to  the  same."  But  the  reader  cannot  tell  what  the  whole  com- 
mittee  thought  of  the  evidence,  nor  have  we  any  knowledge 
of  one  word  he  said.  We  have  nothing  but  the  Secretary^ 
opinion.  Here  we  also  find  J.S.  Weaver,  and  W.  C.  Garri- 
son, called  up  a  second  time  to  testify  upon  this  same  specifi- 
cation, in  addition  to  their  joint  certificate.  We  trust  we  have 
already  shown  good  reason  why  they  should  not  be  heard  as 
witnesses  in  this  case. 

No.  12.  W.  P.  Bassett,  also  testified  to  the  truth,  substan- 
tially of  the  same." 

No.  13.  "  W.  R.  Baird  was  also  questioned  as  to  the  troth 
of  the  charge,  before  set  forth,  and  also  testified  to  its  truth/* 

No.  14.  "  T.  J.  Weaver  wab  questioned,  who  corroborated 
the  same." 

No.  15.  "A.  G.  Haren  likewise  testified  to  the  same." 

No.  16.  "R.  H.  Davis  was  also  questioned  whose  iestimo" 
ny  agreed  with  the  above." 

Our  remarks.  Who  can  tell  what  these  five  witnesses  did 
say?  No  man  can  tell.  Who  weighed  their  testimony  and 
deeided  what  they  proved?  Or  with  whom  they  agreed  or 
disagreed?  Of  course  that  would  fee  the  sole  business i and 
right  of  the  committee.  But  here,  from  the  very  minutes  of 
trial  quoted  by  W.  Hicks,  we  find  the  Secretary,  instead  of 
giving  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses  boldly  asserting  what 
they  "  corroheratea1"  or  proved.  1  have  read  the  minutes  of 
many  a  trial,  but  never  have  read  of  the  like  of  this  before. 
Surely  a  committee  of  Barebone's  Parliament,  would  never 
have  been  guilty  of  so  foul  and  unjust  a  procedure!  There- 
fore upon  the  principles  of  justice  a1  nd  right  already  laid  down 
we  insist  that  the  testimony  of  these  last  witnesses,  five  in 
number,  should  be  discarded,  for  the  great  word  of  the  Secre* 


44 

if  4 

tary,  "  coYroberatedy  comes  in  so  readily,  that  it  would  appeal 
there  was  nothing  left  for  either'  the  committee,  chairman,  or 
the  rest  of  mankind,  to!  do,  'or  ask,  anything  more  than  take 
Mr.  Secretary's  judgment  of  opinion  concerning  the  points. 
Oh  justice !  Whither  hast  thou*  .fled ! ! 

We  have  gone  through  with  the  evidence  presented  by  the 
church  upon-  this  specification,  and  we  shall  now  proceed  to 
lay  down  the  evidence  brought  forward  by  the  defense  upon 
the  same  point  at  the  Quarterly  Conference.  Let  the  reader 
weigh  it  well.  '  '  :  *  t(  ;i 

For  the  Defense. 

u  September  5th,  1851.  I  hereby  certify  that  1  was  at  the 
trial  pf  A.  H.  Brittain  and  heard  all  that  the  Rev.  A. 'Pickens 
said  on  that  occasion,  in  the  Meeting  Housed  and  I  did  not 
hear  him  use  any  personality  whatever:  I  Heard  him*  *  pay  he 
was  charged  with  the  blackest  crimes,  and  ^6u  know ^  rt,  waiv- 
ing his  hand  towards  Hicks  and  Reagan.  v  ; '  1 

J.  B.  WEAVER." 

"  I  do  believe  the  sum  and  substance  of  the  above  is  correct 
according  to  my  recollection! 

ROBERT  LATHAM." 
H I  was  at  the  trial  of  A.  H,  Brittain,  and  Was  present  at  the 
time  that  Andrew  Pickens  made  his  statement,  and  the  above 
is  correct  according  to  my  hearing  s 

THOMAS  O.  ROBERTS." 
"  I  agree  with  the  above  certificate.   By  me, 

A.  ROBERTS." 

"  I  agree  with  the  above  certificate. 

J.  M.  PADGETT." 
"  I  was  at  the  trial  of  A.  H.  Brittain,  and  was  present  at  the 
time  that  Andrew  Pickens  made  his  statement,  and  I  do  be- 
lieve that  the  above  is  a  true  statement. 

WILLIAM  FOX,  Sen." 


45 


"September  ll//t,  1851.  This  }s  to  certify  that  I  attended 
the  church  trial  of  a!  H.  Britta'in.  A.  Pickens  addressed  the 
committee,  to  the  'best  of  my  recollection,  in  explaining  one  of 
the  charges,  to  wit :  the''bringing  the  ministers  into  disrepute ; 
he  said  it  made  no  difference  what  might  be  published  against 
him — he  supposed  'they  did  riot  call  him  a  minister,  for  there 
had  been  tilings  published  agains^him  as  black  as  midnight 
darkness.  Then  waiving  his  hand  towards  the  Elder,  and 
several  others,  sitting  near  him,  stating — "  brethren  you  know 
it,"  He  did  not  personage  them  as  Sons  of  Temperance,  nor 
did  he  express  what  publication  He  lia'd  reference  to.  This  is 
given  by  me,  ANDREW  J.  GILL." 

Our  remarks.  Nowhere  are  sevWn  witnesses  who  have 
testified  in  behalf  of  the  did  minister,'  and  they  airpointedly 
bear  a  most  united  testimony,  that  brother  'Pickens1  used  no 
personality  whatever.  Now  look  back  and  read  ovfer  the  tes- 
timony of  Mr,  Hick's  witnesses,  arV&  find  tnem  sa^ih'g  he  had 
reference  to  the  Sons"  but  not  "one  solitary  orier  among 
them  dares  to  tell  how  that  reference  was  madejor  wfiat'  words 
he  used  to  make  the  reference!!  The  fact  is,  simply  mis,  they 
no  doubt  felt  guilty ;  from  their  connexion  with1  those  scanda- 
lous pamphlets,  they  couM  not  have  felt  otherwise,  particular- 
ly Hicks,  for  guilt  canaot  be  still,  and  often  bedomes  its  own 
accuser.  Is  it  not  even  so  in  this  case  ?  Does  not  the  evidence 
fully  bear  us  out  in  the  opinion  ? 

"  Being  called  on  to  state  what  I  heard  about  the  trial  of 
Maj.  Brittain,  and  the  remarks  made  by  Andrew  Pickens,  he 
there  said  there  had  been  things  published  about,  or  on  him, 
as  black  as  midnight,  and  you  know  it — waiving  his  hand  to 
the  eastern  side  of  the  house. 

September  8th  1851.  R.  H.  PICKENS." 

September  9th  1851.   I  was  at  the  trial\of  A.  H.  Brittain, 


46 


and  was  in  the  house  at  the  time  that  the  Rev.  Andrew  Pick- 
ens made  his  statements,  and  I,  dp  not  believe  that  he  used  any 
personality.  1  was  one  of  tltje  committee,  and  have  a  right  to 
know.  ALFRED  ANDERS." 

Our  remarks.  Listen  to  t^ese  two  witnesses,  how  pointedly 
they  tell  the  tale — particularly  ttye lajst  one,  Mr.  Anders.  He 
was  one  of  the  committee  on  Maj.  Brittain'-s  trial.  Brother 
Pickens  was  addressing  that  committee  when  his  language 
gave  offense  to  Hicks  and  company,  therefore,  we  must  sup- 
pose he  was  paying  strict  attention  to  what  was  said  and  yet  he 
says,  UI  do  not  believe  that  he  used  any  personality."  How 
on  earth  then,  could  brother  Pickens  have  made  a  c.'  reference 
to  the  Sons?" 

f  l  hereby  certify  that  1  was  at  A.  H.  Brittain's  trial  and. 
heard  A  Pickens  speak,  and  heard  him  express  himself  i,n  this 
way — that  things  had  been  published  against  him  as  black  as 
midnight  darkness;  but  did  no£  say  who  had  done  it.  He 
did  not  personate  any  body  at  all. 

GEORGE  N.  GILL." 
"September  Wi,  1851.  1  do  hereby  certify  that  1  was  at 
the  church  trial,  Reem's  Creek,  when  Maj.  Britton  was  tried, 
and  heard  Rev.  A.  Pickens  speak,  when  he  charged  that  things 
had  been  published  against  him  as  black  as  midnight,  but  did 
not  say  who  had  published  them.  He  did  not  say  any  man, 
or  set  of  men,  but  said  his  brethren  knew  it. 

JOSEPH  P.  ELLER." 
"  I  agree  with  the  above  statement, 

WIKLIAM  J.  FOX." 
September  Wth,  1851.    I  hereby  certify  that  I  was  present 
on  the  occasion  iuwhich  the  Rev.  Andrew  Pickens  is  censur- 
ed  for  accusing  the  Sons  of  Temperance  of  publishing  things 
against  him,  as  black  as  midnight.    1  was  not  onlv  present 


47 


but  paying  special  attention,  and  give  it  as  follows  :  that  het 
the  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  addressingfi#ie  committee,  stated  there 
were  things  published  against  him  as  black  as  midnight—-; 
and  brethren  you  know  it — without  naming  any  sect  or  order 
of  people.  Given  under  my  hand.  This  was  my  understand- 
ing of  the  matter.      .  t   ,  A.  H.  BRITTAIN." 

"1  ivas  at  A.  H.  Britain's  trial,  and  heard  Andrew. Pickens 
speak,  and  the  above  is  my  understanding  of  the  matter,  and 
I  paid  strict  attention  to  what  was  saip1.  , 

.  D.  HUNSUCKER  " 

■ . .   ■  \  .  ■:      .  • 

September  11th  1851.  Whereas,  Andrew  Pickens  is  charg- 
ed with  falsehood,  in  denying  that  Jie  publicly  chargetd  some 
of  the  members  of  Reem's  Creek  Division,  Sons  of  Temper- 
ance, had  been  guilty  of  the  blackest  crimes,  and  had  stated 
things  about  him  which  the>  knew  to  be  false  ;  w,e  the  under* 
signed,  on  a  certain  day,  were  at  the  trial  of  Maj.  Brittain,  and 
did  hear  the  Rev.  A.  Pickens  complain  of  hard  treatment,  and 
unjust  assertions,  and  they  knew  it;  but  he  personated  no 
man  nor  set  of  men.  As  to  his  charging  the  Sons  of  Tem- 
perance, (the  Reem's  Creek  Division)  with  the  blackest  crimes 
is  unjust  and  untrue.  We  would  be  hard  to  be  made  believe 
that  the  said  Andrew  Pickens  would  be  guilty  of  falsehood 
on  any  occasion  whatever.  Some  of  us  have  known  him  for 
thirty  y ears  and  more,  and  have  been  well  acquainted  with 
his  public  and  private  life,  and  have  never  heard  one  charge 
of  immorality  charged  against  his  character  to  the  present  day ; 
and  we  think  we  are  not  partial  towards  him.  We  are  not 
members  pf  his  church,  nor  of  his  society  of  the  christian 
order.  We  profess  to  be  Presbyterians :  and  went  on  that  day 
merely  as  spectators,  to  hear  the  trial  of  said  Brittain.  Here- 
unto we  freely  ahd  independently  subscribe  our  names. 

GEORGE  PENLAND, 
G.  G.  HUGHES, 
JAMES  BALLARD." 


48 


Our  remarks.  The  above  certificate  is  most  certainly  a 
" clincher"  and  of  course  Will  settle  the  question  with  all  im- 
partial tminds.  Our  only  astonishment  is  this,  that  Mr.  Hicks 
should  (be  so  ^ull  as  to  publish  to  the  world,  testimony  that 
.wftuld  prove  his.  own  conduct  to  be  so  unworthy  of  the  minis- 
terial office,  ahd  thereby,  enstamp  shame  and  reproach  upon 
his  very  ijame.  But,  alas!  how  blind  is  poor  fallen  man!! 
Buncombe  pounty,  N.  C,  September  12th,  1851. 

"  Being  called  onj  I  do  hereby  certify  that  I  was  present  at 
A.  H.  Brittain's  trial  alj  Reem's  Creek  Church,  and  heard  all, 
as  I  believe,  that  passed  there,  publicly ;  and  I  am  well  aware 
that  in  the  remark,  made  by  Andrew  Pickens,  concerning 
some  publications  whlcji  he  said  were  as  black  as  midnigh^ 
was  not  directed  particularly  fo  the  Reem's  Creek  Division, 
according  to  my  understanding ;  and  I  cannot  be  deceived 
from  the  fact  that  a  certain  publication  (  of  Edney's,  in  the 
*  Messenger,"  rushed  itself  upon  nry  mind,  as  one  particular- 
ly alluded  to.    Given  under  my  ha^d  and  q^ate  above, 

VpLLJAM  PICKENS." 

rt  September  Wth,  1851.  I  do  hereby  certify  that  J.  S.  Wea- 
ver, and  W.  C.  Garrison,  came  to  our  house  and  interrogated 
my  husband  about  some  things  that  he.jiad  said  at  the  Meet- 
ing House,  on  the  day  of  A.  H.  Brittain's  trial.  X  S.  Weaver 

asked  my  husband  who  or  what  he  filluded  to  when  he  made 
the  expression.  My  husband  said  he  knew  what  they  were  after 
and  would  not  say  that  he  had  reference  to  any  thing  or  any 
bod).  J.  S.  Weaver  asked  him  if  he  did  not  tell  Hicks,  that 
lie  alluded  to  his  pamphlet — and  he  told  him  no.  And  4-  S, 
Weaver  did  not  ask  him  any  thing  about  the  Reem's  Creek 
Division,  nor  Sons  of  Temperance. 

D.  A.  PICKENS." 
Out  remarks.    The  testimony  of  the  defense  here  closes  on 


49 


the  specification'  under  consideration.  Nineteen  witnessed 
have  testified  by  certificate  on  this  point,  and  they  all  give  a 
most  united  and  harmonious  testimony — a  testimony  that  car- 
ries an  overwhelming  conviction  of  truth  to  every  honest  mind. 
Hicks  and  company,  introduced  but  fifteen  witriesses  to  susr 
tain  this  specification,  and  the  reader  has  seen  how  vague  and 
contradictory  their  testimony  has  been.  And  now*  tell  us* 
gentle  reader,  are  you  not  surprised  that  Davy  Sullin's  com- 
mittee should  have  pronounced  this  specification  sustained! 
Recollect  what  it  charges  upon  brother  Pickens.  "Denying 
that  he  publicly  charged  that  some  of  the  members  of  the  Reem's 
Creek  Division,  Sons  of  Temperance,  had  been  guilty  of  the 
blackest  crimes,  and  had  stated  things  about  him  which  they 
knew  to  be  false."  Where  now  do  you  find  one  of  the  fifteen 
witnesses  for  the  church  even  daring  to  say  that  he  named  the 
Sons  of  Temperance  ?  Not  one  of  them  would  do  it.  Even 
Hicks  himself,  would  not  do  it.  He  simply  encloses  in  brack- 
ets these  words :  (" in  alluding  to  the  Sons")  He  could  not 
venture  to  say  brother  Pickens  named  the  Sons.  And  Rev. 
J.  S.  Weaver,  in  his  testimony  simply  tells  us  Rev.  A.  Pick- 
ens spoke  um  reference  to  the  Sons"  But  neither  of  them  tell 
how,  or  by  what  words  or  language  the  " allusion,' '  or  "refer- 
ence"  was  made  to  the  Sons.  Could  not  do  that  we  suppose! 
They  had  gone  far  enough  as  it  was.  But  behold  Davy  Sul- 
lin's committee  pronounced  Rev.  A  Pickens  guilty  of  the 
charge  upon  this  vague  and  contradictory  testimony,  one- 
sided as  it  was,  and  then  when  the  case  went  up  to  the  Quar-i 
terly  Conference,  and  the  testimony  on  both  sides  of  the  alle- 
gation was  heard;  behold  that  body,  in  despite  of  the  clear, 
weighty,  and  overwhelming  testimony  for  the  defense,  con- 
firmed the  verdict  of  the  committee  below!!  But  the  candid 
reader  may  ask  how  could  the  members  of  the  Quarterly  Con- 


50 


fere  nee  do  such  an  act  as  that,  when  the  weight  of  evidence 
bears  so  strongly  and  conclusively  in  behalf  of  the  innocence 
of  the  accused  ?  The  answer  is  this :  there  is  a  wheel  within1 
a  wheel ;  thus  it  was  irk  this  ease.  William  Hicks  is  a  Presi- 
ding  Elder — David  Sulliris,  a  travelling  preacher— ten  mem- 
oers  of  that  Quarterly  Conference  were  Stewards  and  Class 
leaders,  and  were  made  such,  and  could  hold  bhHce  and  ap- 
pointment only  by  authority  of  the  traveling  preacher  in  charge. 
Every  Methodist  reader  knti  ws  the  Presiding  Elders  are  the 
Bishop's  council  in  stationing  the  preachers ;  hence  they  are 
dependent  upon  the  Presiding  Elders  to  secure  them  good  ap- 
pointments. The  Stewarts  and  Class-leaders  being  appoint- 
ed and  removed  to  and  from  office  at  the  will  of  the  preacher 
in  charge,  it  is  qliite  an  easy  matter  for  him  to  fill  those  places 
with  men  wh6  will  obey  his  will  and  do  his  work.  In  this 
case  there  are  three  wheels.  1st.  'the  Presiding  Elder.  2nd; 
The  traveling  preacher.  3rd.  I'he  Stewarts  and  Class-leaders; 
The  work  to  Be  done  is  to  crush  Rev.  A.  Pickens.  The  firsi 
wheel  turns,  and  it  moves  the  second.  The  second  turns  and 
it  moves  the  third— and  all  moving  together  the  work  is  done 
in  fipite  of  proof  or  no  proof.  Take  care  reader  if  you  be  a 
Methodist,  that  you  do  not  offend  one  of  the  upper  wheels,  if 
you  do,  you  may  be  crushed  by  that  wheel  turning  upon  and 
movitfg  the  lower  one.  These  things  are  done  in  America  bf 
tyrants  >  who  love  power.  Thus  our  readers  will  perceive  by 
ibe  evidence  that  we  have  adduced  that  the  first  specification 
in  trial  was  sustained  according  to  neither  truth  nor  justice ; 
and  the  reader  c£th  readily  perceive  that  the  "head  and  fro^l 
of  the  old  miriteibrt  offending?  was  contained  therein.  There- 
fore, the  whole  thai  is  fairly  underminded  by  our  exposure  of 
the  foul  means  tfsed  in  the  examination  of  the  first  specifica- 
tion to  make  falsehWd  pass  for  truth. 


51 


But,  does  the  reader  want  to  see  a  beautiful  speck  of  Hick's 
foul  play  1  If  so,  we  will  show  it.  He  sa,ys,  on  page  46  of 
bis  pamphlet : 

*'  1st.  I  remark,  that  the  testimony  adduced  by  father  Pick*, 
ens  was  illegal ;  for  he  h#d  not  given,  Rev.  David  Sullins  no-, 
tice  that  he  was  going  to,  take  certificates  to  ufee  in  his  defense- 
I  made  this  known,  to  the  (Quarterly  Conference."  Now  let 
the  reader  look  back  to  the  evidence  brought  before  the  Com- 
mittee of  trial,  by  Hicks  and  Sailing,  a,nd  there  is  the  certifi- 
cates of  J.  C.  Weaver,  W.  G.  QarjisoOj,  "S.  Smith  and  others" 
all  dated  in  June,  the  month  before  broker  Pickens  w?,a 
eharged — did  they  give  him  notice  that  they  wouldi  obtain 
1,hese  certificates  to  bring  in  on,  trials  No  Sir — these  were 
obtained  sometime  before  th$  cij^;ges  were  made  out.  Don't 
be  alarmed  friends,  here  is  something  a  little  blacker  still. 

Looking  forward  to  the  other  specifications,  we  find  certifi- 
cates brought  in  by  the  prosecution,  bearing  the  following  sig- 
natures, and  dates. : 

1st.  Certificate  signed  by  Sara^h,  Coulter,  W.  C.  Weaver, 
and  E.  E.  Blackstock,  dated  "May  21st  185J." 

2nd.  Cer^ficate  signed  by  Harriet  Blackstock,  and  Marga- 
ret M.  Weaver,  dated  "  May  21st  1851,." 

3rd.  Certificate  by  Thomas  B.  Dula,  dated  «23rd  June,, 
1851" 

Who,  we  ask,  gave  Rev.  A.  ^ickens  notice  that  these  certi*. 
ficates  would  be  taken  so  long  time  before  he  was  ch^ged,  to, 
be  used  upon  his  trial  ?  The  answer  is,  nobody.  Yfall,  if  rule, 
required  brother  Pickens  to  give  tyav id,  Sullins  notice  that  ho. 
would  take  certificates  to  use  in  his  defense,  o£  course  the, 
same  rule  would  require  D^vid  Sullins  to;  give  ^ev.  A.  Pick-, 
ens  notice  that  he  wouJ<J|  take  certificates  to  use  against  hin\ 
on  the  trial-stilus  you  see,  gentle  reader*  that  if  there  was  an>; 


52 


illegality  on  the  part  of  the  evidence  of  brother  Pickens,  there 
was  any  amount  of  it  on  the  part  of  the  evidence  brought  in 
by  Hicks,  Sullins,  &  Co.  Gentle  reader,  take  a.  survey  of  Mr. 
Hicks  in  this  matter  and  tell  us  how  he  looks.  After  this  ex- 
posure, we  now  proceed  to  the  next  item  in  the  charge. 

"  Specification  2nd.  In  denying  that  he  told  the  Rev,  Wm. 
Hicks  to  what  he  had  reference,  when  he  made  the  public 
charge,  above  alluded  to,  and  also  saying  that  he  had  refer- 
ence to  nobody  particularly,  nor  to  any  particular  thing,  when 
he  made  the  said  charge." 

Now  then  for  the  evidence.    Here  it  comes. 

No.  1.  "Rev.  J.  S.  Weaver  was  examined,  who  said  that  the 
Rev.  A.  Pickens  denied  ever  having  explained  to  the  Rev.  W. 
Hicks,  to  what  he  had  reference,"  &c. 

No.  2.  W.  C.  Garrison,  stated  that  Rev.  A.  Pickens  denied 
that  he  ever  explained  to  Rev.  W.  Hicks,  and  that  he  said  he 
had  reference  to  no  particular  person  or  thing,  as  set  forth  in 
the  certificate  given  by  him  and  Rev.  J.  S.  Weaver." 

No.  3.  "  W.  R.Baird  stated  that  the  Rev.  A.  Pickens  ex- 
plained to  him  that  he  had  no  reference  to  him,  but  to  the  pam- 
phlet previously  published,  and  those  who  endorsed  it." 

No.  4.  Rev.  Wm.  Hicks  was  questioned  as  to  whether  the 
$ev.  A.  Pickens  did  make  the  explanation,  who  says  that  he 
did,  and  that  he  said  he  had  reference  to  certain  items  in  the 
pamphlet  entitled  "  The  way  the  Wind  Blows,"  which  items 
were  mentioned  by  Rev.  Wm.  Hicks." 

Owr  remarks.  As  it  regards  the  evidence  of  ihis  last  wit- 
ness, Hicks,  we  believe  it  is  well  known  that  when  a  witness 
contradicts  himself  in  court,  his  testimony  is  always  set  aside. 
We  have  already  shown  how  Hicks  contradicts  himself.  Let 
\he  reader  compare  the  evidence  he  gave  in  above,  with  his 
certificate  recorded  with  the  testimony  upon  the  first  specific^ 


53 


tion,  and  the  want  of  agreement  between,  the  two  will  a,t  once 
kill  the  credit  of  both.  This  contradiction  we  plainly  set  forth 
in  our  review  of  evidence  upon  the  first  item. 

Baird  says,  "Rev.  A.  Pickens  explained  to  him  that  he  hacj 
no  reference  to  him,  but  to  the  pamphlet  previously  published, 
and  those  who  endorsed  it."  Admitting  this  witness  to  state, 
the  matter  strictly  true,  it  has  no  weight  or  application  what- 
ever to  the  specification  before  us,  for  it  is  "  denying,  that  he. 
told  Rev.  Wm.  Hicks  to  what  he  had  reference"  &c,  and  to 
make  an  explanation  to  W.  R.  Baird,  does  certainly  afford  no( 
proof  that  he  made  one  to  Wm.  Hicks.  What  stuff!!  The 
testimony  of  J.  S.  Weaver  and  W.  C.  Garrison  proves  nothing 
at  all  upon  this  specification,  inasmuch  as  Hick's  testimony  is 
discredited  by  his  own  contradictions.  But  mark  the  result. 
The  committee  with  all  this  before  them  found  brother  Pick- 
ens guilty  in  this  specification  also.  It  was  no  up-hill  work 
with  them  to  do  so. 

"Specification  3rd.  In  telling  M.  C.  Weaver,  E.  E.  Black- 
stock,  and  Sarah  Coulter,  on  the  day  that  some  ladies  met  at 
Salem  Meeting  House  to  make  "regalia,"  that  he  did  not 
|inow  that  any  thing  of  the  kind  was  going  on  at  the  church, 
till  he  met  the  girls,  M.  M.  Weaver,  and  H.  J.  Blackstock  above 
the  church ;  whereas,  he  told  the  two  latter  that  he  had  heard 
that  something  of  the  kind  was  going  on  there,  and  thought  he 
would  come  over  and  see  about  it." 

NOW  THEN  FOR  THE  EVIDENCE. 

"  Mary  C.  Weaver  was  called  upon,  and  questioned  as  to 
whether  the  following  certificate  is  hers ;  to  which  she  replied 
in  the  affirmative,  and  declared  it  to  be  substantially  true.— * 
The  certificate  was  then  read.    It  is  as  follows :" 

"May2lst  1851. 

We  do  hereby  certify  that  on  the  day  that  we  and  others 


54 


met  at  Salem  Meeting  Honse,  for  the  purpose  of  making  re- 
galia for  Reem's  Creek  Division,  the  Rev.  ^ndrew  Pickens 
came  to  that  place  some  time  in  the  evening,  and  meeting 
with  us  near  the  churqj],  he  enqu.Jre.fj  of  us  what  we  were 
doing  there.  We  informed  him  that  we  h#cj  met  $o  make  re- 
galia for  the  Sons  of  Temperance.  Upon  whicji  he  said  he 
had  not  heard  of  it  till  he  met  the  girls,  (M.  M.  Weaver  and 
H.  J.  Blackstock)  above  the  church,  and  that  fye  was  surprised 
at  Jacob  Weaver  and  John  Weaver,  and  the  rest  of  the  Wea- 
vers, for  allowing  such  doings  in  the  church,  that  he  had  giv- 
en that  land  to  build  a  church  on  to  worship  God  in,  not  idols. 
He  asked  us  if  the  Sons  intended  to  paganize  in  the  church. 
We  told  him  they  did,  and  also  told  him  when  they  expected^ 
to  do  so.  He  said  he  would  meet  them  there,  intimated  tljiat, 
he  would  oppose  the  Sons  in  organizing  there,  and  askedj  us 
to  attend.  'Cjne  of  us  asked  him  how  he  could  oppose  the  or- 
ganization in  the  church,  when  the  rest  of  the  trustees  were 
willing  for  the  Sons  to  organize  there.  He  said  he  had  given 
the  land,  and  that  he  did  not  intend  to  allow  of  such  doings 
there.  We  tried  to  reason  him  out  of  his  perplexity,  for  we 
believed  that  he  was  angry,  as  his  voice  and  language  indica- 
fed.  He  said  if  he  could  see  that  the  Sons  were  doing  any 
good,  he  would  feel  better  reconciled,  "v^e  pointed  to  some 
who  had  been  reclaimed  from  drunkenness,  (one  especially,), 
to  which  he  replied,  "yes,  and  he  gets  drunk" 

SARAH  COUNTER, 

M.C.  WEAVER, 

E.  E.  BLACKSTQCK." 

"The  witness  was  then  further  questioned :  Did  you  under* 
stand  this  to  be  a  reproof?  Answer.  I  did.  [Wonderful  in- 
deed—what is  a  reproof?]  Did  you  consider  the  whole  as  a 
strong  reproof?  Ans.   I  did.   When  was  this  ?  Ans.   A  few 


55 

days  before  the  Division  was  organized  here;  and  I  told  tilrri 
when  the  Division  would  be  organized." 

Our  remarks.  Who  can  possibly  find  any  thing  like  u  a 
reproof?  or  u  a  strong  reproof?  in  the  preceding  certificate  ? 
Yet,  no  doubt,  any  company  of  young  girls,  being  found  as- 
sembled in  a  house  dedicated  to  the  worship  of  AtrKighty  God, 
and  engaged  there  in  sewings  as  though  it  were  d  work-shop,* 
would  feel  reproved,  if  fodrid  there,  and  asked  by  an  aged 
minister  of  the  gospel  what  they  "  were  doing  there.19 

"  We  do  hereby  certify  that  on  the  evening  of  the  day  that 
we,  and  others,  met  at  Salem  Meeting  House,  to  make  regalia 
for  the  Reem's  Creek  Division,  the  Rev.  A.  Pickens  met  us 
near  the  church,  and  asked  us  what  we  were  doing  there. — 
We  told  him  that  there  was  a  sewing  there"  [Who  ever  heard 
of  a  sewing  in  the  house  of  God  before !]  He  said  that  he 
had  heard  that  there  was  someihing  of  the  Kind  there,  and 
thought  that  he  would  come  and  see  about  it — that  the  church' 
was  not  built  to  sew  in,  but  to  worship  God  in.  We  believe 
he  was  mad,  for  he  trembled  while  he  talked. 

Harriet  blackstock, 

May  21st,  1851.  MARGARET  M.  WEAVER" 

Our  remarks.  1st.  We  object  to  these  two  certficates  sign- 
ed by  the  five  young  women,  because  they  bear  date,  moro 
than  two  months  before  the  date  of  the  charges,  which  proves 
most  clearly,  that  they  were  not  ivritteri  to  be  read  on  the  trial. 
But  William  Hicks,  no  doubt  thought  they  would  do. 

2nd.  We  do  most  eriiplhaticaity  deriy  that  they  sdstain  the 
specification.  Let  the  reader  look  back  and  read  the  specifi- 
cation— and  then  we  will  give  this  testimony  in  a  nut  shell. 
Here  it  is. 

Rev.  A.  Pickens  met  H.  J.  Blackstock  and  M.  M.  Weaver, 
haar  the  church,  and  asked  therri  what  they  were  doing  there: 
Thejr  say, "  we  told  hirii  that  there  was  a  sewing  there."  "  He 


56 


said  that  ho  had  heard  there  was  something  of  the  kind  there; 
and  thought  he  would  come  and  see  about  it."  Again  He  met 
Sarah  Coulter,  Ms  Ci  Weaver,  and  E.  E.  Blackstock.  They 
say  he  asked  "  what  we  were  doing  there."  They  repiy,  "  we 
have  met  to  make  regalia  for  the  Sons  of  Temperance." 

Now  then  for  the  points.  Here  we  find  a  negative  evidence 
mat  sweeps  away  the  positive  like  chaff  flies  before  the  wind. 
The  first  party  tell  him  "there  was  a  sewing  there."  But  is 
that  all  they  tell  him?  We  think  not.  Did  they  not  tell  him 
what  kind  of  sewing  or  work  the  sewers  were  doing?  They 
bo  doubt  did.  For  the  conversation  which  he  had  with  the 
other  three  girls,  which  is  not  contradicted  at  all,  shows  plainly 
that  they  did — that  there  was  not  only  "a  sewing  there,"  but 
that  they  " were  making  regalia  for  the  Sons"  He  said  to 
the  first  set  of  girls,  "  that  he  had  heard  that  there  was  some- 
thing of  the  kind  there."  But  who  will  for  a  moment  believe 
that  if  he  had  known  what  that  "something"  was,  that  he 
would  have  gone  to  the  church,  to  see  and  know,  what  it  was  ? 
No  body.  He  had  heard  a  rumor  of  something  of  this  sort, 
going  on,  but  not  being  willing  to  believe  every  rumor  afloat, 
he  went  himself  in  search  of  truth,  that  he  might  know  the 
truth.  And  when  the  second  company  of  girls  told  him  they 
"  wrere  making  regalia  for  the  Sons  of  Temperance,1'  he  could 
speak  the  truth  faithfully,  and  say  "  he  had  not  heard  of  it  un- 
til he  met  the  girls  above  the  church."  Every  body  knows 
there  is  some  difference  between  the  phrases,  "  a  sewing  there," 
and  "making  regalia  for  the  Sons  of  Temperance"  Even  so 
in  this  case.  But,  inasmuch  as  it  was  the  business  of  David 
Sullin's  committee,  and  William  Hick's  Quarterly  Meeting 
to  find  Andrew  Pickens  guilty,  the  reader  need  not  be  surpris- 
ed that  they  pronounced  the  old  minister  guilty  of  this  charge 


57 


also.  But  who  else,  we  ask,  could  have  done  it  upon  such 
flimsey  testimony  as  the  above  ? 

"  Charge  second  was  called  up." 
"  Specification  1st.  His  manner  of  preaching  at  the  Ridge? 
also  at  Ivy  and  Flat  Creek." 

Our  remarks.  Hear  oh  heavens!  and  give  ear  oh  earth  !! 
Has  such  a  specification  ever  been  written  against  a  minister 
of  the  gospel  before  ?  Tried  for  his  manner  of  preaching ! 
Alas!  Alas!!  The  accusers  or  enemies  of  the  prophet  DanieL 
were  hard  put  to  it,  to  find  something  against  him  that  they 
might  accuse  him  to  the  King.  But  could  bring  no  charge 
only  concerning  his  manner  towards  his  God.  But  here  is  an 
old  minister  of  about  forty  years  standing  accused  for  his 
"manner  of  preaching"    Now  then  for  the  evidence. 

"  H.  P.  Corn  was  questioned  as  to  whether  he  understood 
the  Rev.  A.  Pickens  to  encourage  secession  from  the  church, 
at  the  Ridge  Meeting  House.  &c,  by  his  preaching.  He 
stated  that  the  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  after  preaching,  gave  way  to> 
Wm.  Fox,  sen.,  saying  he  could  proceed  as  he  pleased,  &c. 
and  that  he  did  not  tell  Wm.  Fox,  sen.,  that  he  ought  not  to 
create  a  schism  in.  or  produce  a  secession  from  the  church ; 
and  that  he  remained  in  his  seat  while  Wm.  Fox,  sen.,  called 
for  those  who  wished  to  leave  the  church — and  that  after  some 
forty  had  withdrawn,  he  (Pickens)  dismissed  the  congregalion? 
He  further  stated,  that  he  believed  there  was  an  understanding 
between  the  Rev.  A  Pickens  and  Wm.  Fox,  sen. 

Question  by  Rev.  J.  Weaver.  "Did  old  Mr.  Fcx  say  for 
what  reason  they  were  going  to  leave  the  church  ?"  Ans.  "He 
did  not — but  I  understood  it  to  be  on  account  of  the  Sons,  &c. 
Que?.  "Did  brother  Pickens  allude  to  secession  from  the 
church  ?  Ans.  No— but  I  believe  there  was  an  understanding 
among  them." 


§5 

Our  remarks.  The  testimony  of  this  witness  we  honestly 
think  should  fairly  acquit  the  Rev.  A.  Pickens  of  every  charge 
that  was  brought  against  him  by  Hicks,  Sullins,  &  Co.,  for  the 
plain  reason  that  the  witness  told  not  what  he  knew,  (for  he 
knew  nothing  to  tell,)  but  he  only  told  what  he  believed.  And 
the  company  in  the  prosecution  have  the  brass  to  publish  it 
to  the  world  as  evidence. 

Now  in  a  court  of  justice,  where  justice  is  the  object  had  in 
view,  a  witness  is  not  allowed  to  tell,  in  giving  in  his  testimo- 
ny, what  he  believes  or  supposes,  but  only  what  he  knows. — 
But  justice  not  being  the  object  of  Hicks,  Sullins,  &  Co.,  pri- 
vate opinions  would  pass  in  their  "church  court"  as  evidence? 
if  they  could  only  destroy  their  victim  thereby.  Of  course, 
when  we  have  such  evidence  of  injustice  and  corruption  as 
this  case  affords,  public  opinion  should  enstamp  the  seal  of 
condemnation  upon  the  whole  procedure,  as  it  would  upon  the 
blackness  of  despotism. 

"  J.  R.  Weaver  was  questioned.  Did  you  at  any  time  hear 
brother  Pickens  favor  secession  from  the  church  ?  Ans.  I  think 
I  did,  in  the  sermon  at  the  Ridge,  before  alluded  to.  Did  you 
understand  or  believe  that  there  was  an  understanding  between 
Rev.  A.  Pickens  and  Wm.  Fox,  sen.,  at  that  meeting  ?  Ans. 
1  so  understood  it,  &c.  Did  you  suppose  that  he  alluded  to 
the  Sons?  Ans.  I  did." 

Our  remarks.  The  last  witness  seems  to  have  been  accept- 
able to  the  prosecution  although  he  knew  nothing.  1st.  He 
was  twice  asked  the  question  as  to  what  he  believed  and  sup- 
posed, to  Rev.  A.  Pickens  favoring  secession  from  the  church. 
To  each  of  which  he  gives  an  affirmative  answer.  This  plain- 
ly shows  that  Hicks,  Sullins,  &  Co.,  Wanted  opinions  and 
suppositions  for  testimony.  Now  suffer  us  to  illustrate.  Sup- 
pose William  HicKS  should  be  indicted  in  Court  for  stealing 


59 


n  sheep,  and  Andrew  Pickens  should  be  called  in  as  a  witness 
against  him,  and  the  Counsel  for  the  State  should  ask  the  wit- 
ness the  following  questions  in  order  to  convict  the  accused: 

Counsel. — "  Did  you  at  any  time  hear  William  Hicks  favor 
stealing  a  sheep  ?" 

Witness.— "1  think  I  did." 

Counsel. — "Did  you  understand  or  believe  that  he  stole  a 
sheep?" 

Witness. — "  I  so  understood  it,  &c." 
Counsel. — "  Do  you  suppose  that  he  alluded  to  stealing  a 
sheep?" 

Witness.— "1  did." 

Would  it  not  be  worse  than  mockery  to  call  such  testimony 
f  evidence ?"  Now  what  friend  to  justice  would  not  call  such 
a  procedure  a  perfect  mockery  ?  Every  body  would  condemn 
it.  But  the  reader  can  see  that  we  have  used  in  this  supposi- 
tion, the  identical  form  of  questions  put  by  the  committee  to 
J.  R.  Weaver.    Let  William  Hicks  make  the  application. 

u  T.  B.  Dula  was  then  questioned.  Did  you  ever  under- 
stand the  Rev.  A.  Pickens  to  favor  secession  in  his  sermons? 
Ans.  I  did.  He  was  then  questioned  as  to  the  following  cer- 
tificate.   He  said  it  was  true.    Here  it  is. 

"Buncombe  Co.  N.  C. 

"As  I  am  requested  to  give  the  course  pursued  by  the  Rev. 
A.  Pickens,  at  a  meeting  of  his  at  Flat  Creek  School  House, 
and  to  give  words  spoken  by  him,  I  think,  [behold  he  only 
thinks  I]  that  when  he  got  to  his  appointment,  it  was  about 
twelve  o'clock.  He  walked  into  the  meeting  house,  and  after 
the  congregation  began  to  seat  themselves  for  the  services  to 
commence,  Thomas  O.  Roberts  came  in,  stepped  to  the  pulpit, 
took  the  said  Pickens  out  to  where  there  were  others,  an<j 
from  every  appearance  they  were  holding  strong  consultation* 


60 


After  some  half  hour,  or  more,  the  said  Pickens  returned  and 
commenced  his  services.    After  reading  his  text,  he  conveyed 
the  idea  that  there  was  a  time,  not  very  far  ahead,  when  he  had 
his  fears  no  man  would  be  allowed  to  preach  unless  he  had  a 
classical  education,  and  only  a  few  would  be  allowed  to  read 
the  scriptures.    He  said  that  there  was  a  people  that  chose 
men  to  preach  for  them  that  would  please  their  own  carnal 
dispositions.    He  said  there  were  parts  of  the  scriptures  that 
had  been  so  translated  as  to  destroy  their  proper  meaning. — 
And  he  said  that  before  he  would  do  as  some  were  doing,  he 
would  be  burned  at  the  stake.    He  also  spoke  of  some  altera- 
tions having  been  made  in  our  Discipline.    He  also  spoke  of 
being  badly  imposed  on,  and  he  said  that  there  was  going  to 
be  a  trial  made  to  see  if  there  could  be  a  society  formed  there. 
He  also  stated  that  it  had  been  said  that  they  could  not  form 
a  church.    He  then  said  that  there  was  a  church  not  far  distant 
that  they  could  attach  themselves  to,  and  that  he  was  going 
too,  but  he  intended  to  go  step  by  step.  I  assure  you  that  every 
unprejudiced  person  there  that  day,  could  see  that  his  object 
was  to  cause  a  separation  in  the  church.    The  meeting,  I  think 
was  on  the  8th  inst.    This  was  the  conduct,  and  these  the 
words,  or  in  substance,  by  brother  Pickens,  on  the  occasion. 
Certified  by  me,  this  23rd  June,  1851. 

THOMAS  B.  DULA." 

"The  witness  was  further  questioned  :  Did  you  understand 
him  to  say  that,  he  would  go  out  with  them?"  Ans.  "1  under- 
stood him"  to  say  that  he  was  where  he  had  been,  and  would 
go  out  step  by  step." 

Next  comes  the  certificate  of  E.  E.  Blackstock. 

"  I  do  hereby  certify  that  I  was  at  Flat  Cieek  on  Sunday, 
the  8th  of  June,  and  heard  uncle  Andy  Pickens  say  that  he 
approved  of  the  course  the  seceders  had  taken,  and  that  he 
was  of  them  and  with  them. 

E.E.  BLACKSTOCK." 


61 


— "  William  b  ox,  sen.,  was  men  examined.    He  was  asked  if 
brother  Pickens  ever  favored  secession  at  Flat  Creek  ?"  He 
answered  in  the  negative.    "Did  he  ever,  at  the  Ridge,  or  any 
other  place,  encourage  such  a  thing?*'  Ans.  "He  said  at  the 
Ridge,  that  I  could  do  as  I  saw  proper,"  &c.    "Did  you  un- 
derstand him  to  be  in  favor  of  the  seceders  ?"  Ans.  "  He  would 
like  to  slay  in  the  church  if  he  could  enjoy  himself."    "  Did 
he  ever  reprove  you?"  Ans.  "He  did  not."    "Do  you  look 
upon  him  as  being  in  favor  of  the  seceders?"  Ans.  "No — not 
more  than  he  is  of  other  congregations  with  whom  he  meets.'' 
Our  remarks.    Who  would  suppose  upon  reading  the  pre- 
ceding testimony,  that  any  committee  of  christian  men  would 
have  ventured  to  give  it  as  their  opinion  that  the  specification 
was  sustained  ?  But,  strange  to  tell,  they  done  so,  and  pro- 
nounced the  old  man  guilty.    Now  suppose  we  were  to  ad- 
mit that  there  was  evidence  to  sustain  the  allegation  (which 
we  will  never  concede,)  was  there  any  thing  at  all  immoral  in 
such  a  course  of  conduct?  Not  at  all.    He  had  a  right  to 
favor  secession  from  the  church  if  his  judgment  and  con- 
science led  him  to  regard  it  as  best — a  natural  right  which 
every  American  holds,  and  the  fact  that  a  man  has  become  a 
member  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  does  not 
and  cannot  divest  him  ol  it  unless  there  is  a  gag-law  in  that 
church. 

"  Specification  2nd.  His  statements  at  Flat  Creek,  in  which 
he  said  that  he  approved  of  the  course  of  the  seceders,  and  de- 
clared that  he  was  with  them,  and  was  coming  out  "  step  by 
step." 

"  Evidence  before  the  committee,"  so  says  Mr.  Hicks. — 
What  is  it?  We  may  suppose  it  is  the  testimony  of  the  wit- 
nesses called  up  on  the  last  specification.  Now  let  the  reader 
compare  the  two  specifications  together,  and  he  will  find  tbev 


are  one  in  reality,  and  the  questions  put  to  the  witnesses  go  to 
show  that  David  Sullins  and  his  committee  so  regarded  them. 
|}at  in  order  to  make  an  impression  that  the  faithful  old  min- 
ister^ whom  they  were  now  about  to  sacrifice  as  their  victim, 
was  a  very  great  sinner,  it  suited  their  purpose  to  make  two 
speciftcanons  out  of  one,  and  of  course,  if  testimony  would 
sustain  one  it  would  the  other,  and  if  the  committee  found  him 
guilty  in  one,  it  was  bound  to  do  so  in  the  other.  So  much  k>r 
the  company  in  the  prosecution. 

"  Specification  3rd.  In  advising  A.  H.  Britlain,  (if  nat 
others,)  to  withdraw  from  the  church,  and  from  his  society,  be- 
fore he,  (Brittain,)  was  tried." 

"H.  Barret  was  examined.  Question.  Did  you  ever  hear 
the  Rev.  A.  Pickens  advise  secession  ?  Ans.  "  1  heard  Maj.  A. 
H.  Brittain  say,  that  he  and  others  would  leave  the  church,  and 
that  Rev.  A.  Pickens  was  at  liberty,  and  would  be  their  preach- 
er, &c." 

"  Marion  Fox  was  asked  if  Rev.  A.  Pickens  ever  advised 
secession,  or  if  he  advised  A.  H.  Brittain  to  leave  the  church  ? 
Answered  in  the  negative." 

"  J.  R.  Roberts,  examined,  He  stated  that  he  never  under- 
stood Rev.  A.  Pickens  to  advise  secession — that  he  thought  his 
course  favored  secession." 

Our  remarks.  Here  we  have  to  record  something  wonder- 
ful indeed !  Rev.  Mr.  Hicks  tells  us  that  u  the  evidence  in  sup- 
port of  the  3rd  specification  was  not  thought  to  sustain  it,  either 
by  the  committee  or  the  Conference"  How  could  this  have  hap- 
pened? But  listen  to  Mr.  Hicks  again.  He  says,  il.t]iere  was 
one  certificate  in  hand,  which  would  have  proven  it  true,  but 
owing  to  certain  circumstances,  it  ivas  not  read"  Wbat  a 
pity  it  was  not  read ! !  What  could  those  "  circumstances"  have 
been  ?  Could  it  have  been  a  true  or  false  certificate  ?  Let  the 
reader  judge. 


"  Charge  3rd  was  taken  up? 

"Specification  1st.  By  publicly  saying  those  ministers  be- 
longing to  the  order  of  the  Sons  are  such  as  that  he  was  not 
willing  to  receive  the  Lord's  Supper  at  their  hands — thereby 
impressing  the  minds  of  the  laity,  unfavorably  towards  those 
ministers." 

Now  to  the  testimony. 

"J.  &  Weaver  was  examined.  He  stated  that  the  Rev.  Aa 
Pickens  said  that  he  was  unwilling  to  receive  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per  at  the  hands  of  a  minister  who  is  a  Son  of  Temperance.', 

"  Rev.  M.  M.  Weaver  examined.  He  stated  the  same  sub- 
stantially as  above,  but  thinks  he  alluded  to  brother  Hicks, 
because  he  is  a  Son  of  Temperance,  to  the  prejudicing  the 
minds  of  the  laity." 

"  T.  J.  Weaver  examined.  He  stated  that  he  believed  the 
above  (corroberated)  as  set  forth." 

"  J.  R.  Weaver  examined.  He  stated  substantially  the  same 

with  J.  S.  Weaver,  &c." 

P.  Roberts  examined.  He  said  that  he  made  the  state- 
ment." 

"  J.  R.  Roberts  examined.  Were  you  at  Flat  Creek  ?  I 
was.    Did  you  hear  the  same  ?  I  think  I  did." 

Our  remarks.  Suppose  Rev.  A.  Pickens  did  utter  every 
word  charged  against  him,  and  testified  to  by  these  witnesses, 
it  could  not  be  condemned  upon  any  Bible  principle.  He 
was  a  minister  as  we'll  as  William  Hicks  or  any  other  man. 
He  had  a  conscience  too,  as  well  as  others.  If  he  conscien- 
tiously believed  Mr.  Hicks  to  be  unworthy  to  administer  the 
Lord's  Supper,  he  had  a  right  to  refuse  it  at  his  hands ;  and 
as  a  free  and  independent  citizen  of  Republican  America,  he 
had  in  common  with  all  other  men,  a  right  to  give  his  reasons 
for  either  his  opinions  or  actions,  when  and  where  he  saw 


proper,  in  a  religious  point  ,cf  view.  Therefore,  as  Hicks,  Sul- 
lins,  &  Co.  brought  Rev.  A.  Pickens  to  trial  upon  this  speci " 
fication,  it  was  done  without  either  Bible  or  Disciplinary  au- 
thority.   But  they  were  the  men  that  could  do  it. 

"  Specification  2nd.  By  charging  both  publicly  and  pri' 
vately,  that  some  of  those  ministers,  viz :  the  writer  of  the 
Reem's  Creek  pamphlet,  and  the  ministers  who  endorsed  its 
contents,  as  well  as  the  lay  members,  had  been  guilty  of  stating 
things  about  him  which  they  knew  to  be  false — things  of  such 
magnitude  as  led  him  publicly  to  represent  them  as  the 
"  blackest  crimes." 

. "  Evidence  before  the  committee,"  says  the  Secretary.  Now 
let  the  reader  compare  this  specification  with  the  first,  under 
charge  the  1st.,  and  he  will  find  that  it  is  only  a  part  and 
parcel  of  that  same  item ;  therefore,  the  same  testimony  is 
relied  upon  to  sustain  it,  and  therefore,  the  minutes  say  "  the 
evidence  is  before  the  committee."  Now,  inasmuch  as  we 
have  shown  that  the  first  specification  is  false,  by  overwhelm- 
ing testimony,  that  scattered  the  evidence  of  Hicks,  Sullins, 
<&  Co.,  to  the  winds,  like  chaff,  of  course,  this  specification 
just  read,  can  only  be  regarded  by  the  reader  as  false  also, 
when  there  is  no  testimony  by  which  it  can  stand.  We  now 
introduce  to  the  reader  the  3rd  and  last  specification. 

u  Specification  3rd.  By  endeavoring  to  make  the  impression 
on  the  mind  of  many,  that  certain  items  in  the  pamphlet  above 
alluded  to  are  false,  thereby  inflicting  an  injury  on  all  those 
engaged  in  its  publication  and  especially  upon,  the  writer  of 
the  pamphlet.  DAVID  SULLINS,  P.  in  C, 

of  the  Burnsville  Circuit." 

July  25th,  1851. 

Our  remarks.  The  reader  will  find  this  last  specification 
nearly  as  the  former  one,  and  covering  precisely  the  same 


4 

ground,  and  hence  it  becomes  apparent  at  once  that  the  point 
had  in  view,  by  bringing  these  two  specifications,  was  to  ac- 
quit Rev.  Wm,  Hicks  of  the  allegations  that  existed  in  the 
community  against  him,  concerning  his  pamphlets,  for  it  was 
commonly  reported  and  believed,  that  his  first  and  second 
pamphlets  contained  statements  incompatable  with  truth. 

Hicks  ought  to  have  been  brought  to  trial  for  these  publica*- 
tions,  but  how  is  a. local  minister  to  get  at  a  Presiding  Elder 
in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church?  They  are  far  removed 
from  the  reach  of  a  local  minister.  Conscious  of  their  own 
authority  and  safety,  they  can  traduce  the  good  name  of  a  lo- 
cal minister,  and  if  he  only  complain  that  injustice  has  been 
done  him,  why,  forsooth,  he  is  arraigned  for  trial  and  charged 
with  "inflicting  an  injury  on  all  those  engaged  in  its  publica- 
tion and  especially  upon  the  writer  of  the  pamphlet." 

We  now  proceed  to  notice  Mr.  Hick's  remarks  upon  certain 
points  which  he  says  are  involved  in,  or  come  under  the  2no! 
specification.  But  surely  he  would  have  done  as  well  to  have 
said  they  come  under  the  3rd,  and  those  under  the  3rd  to  have 
come  under  the  2nd.  But  here  the  points  are  jumbled  togeth- 
er. As  we  find  them  so  we  must  use  them.  Under  this  head 
Mr.  Hicks  says :  "  We  are  now  brought  to  the  examination  of 
those  items  in  the  pamphlet,  entitled  "  The  Way  the  Wind 
Blows,"  which  father  Pickens  says  are  false;  and  in  doing  so 
has  sought  to  injure  all  who  were  concerned  in  its  publication 
and  especially  the  writer.  Those  items  are  particularly  re- 
ferred to  in  my  certificate.  See  that  and  the  following :  "Iifira 
1st.,  of  those  denied  by  father  Pickens,  is  on  page  3rd.,  wher© 
he  is  represented  as  attacking  certain  young  ladies,  in  rather 
an  ill  hurr.or,  by  "enquiry  and  reprimand."  [Turn  back 
reader  to  the  young  ladie's  certificates,  and  you  will  find  they 
«ay  nothing  about  an  "  attack,"  or  "  reprimand"    Stick  to  thfc 


Hi 

truth,  Mr.  Hicks.]  Item  2nd.,  is  on  page  4th,  where  the 
pamphlet  speaks  of  certain  opposers  to  the  Sons,  as  being  at 
the  church  when  the  Sons  went  there  to  organize  their  Divis- 
ion. Item  3rd.,  is  on  page  5th,  where  it  is  said  that  the  Rev 
A.  Pickens  and  others,  of  questionable  character,  met  at  the 
church,  either  by  express  understanding,  or  by  a  strange  in- 
fluence, &c.  Item  4th,  is  on  page  12th,  where  it  is  represent- 
ed that  the  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  and  Maj.  A.  H.  Briitain  made 
friends,  &c.  Let  the  reader  keep  these  items  in  view  and 
weigh  the  testimony." 

Our  remarks.  Will  the  reader  please  turn  back  and  read 
the  two  certificates  of  the  five  young  ladies,  and  he  will  find 
from  their  account,  that  the  behavior  of  Rev.  A.  Pickens  to- 
wards the  "young  ladies"  in  question  was  entirely  compatible 
with  the  office  of  the  gospel  minister.  Three  of  them  say, 
"We  tried  to  reason  him  out  of  his  perplexity,  for  we  believed 
him  to  be  angry,  as  his  voice  and  language  indicated."  The 
other  two  say,  "  we  believe  he  was  mad  for  he  trembled  while 
he  talked."  Now,  in  all  candor,  what  did  Rev.  A.  Pickens 
say  to  these  young  ladies  that  could  by  any  fair  construction, 
be  regarded  as  the  language  of  anger?  Nothing  at  all.  If  he 
used  such  language,  they  do  not  tell  what  it  was.  It  would  be 
very  natural  for  young  women,  particularly  if  sensitive,  when 
being  found  engaged  as  they  were,  to  be  told  by  an  aged  min- 
ister of  the  gospel,  that  the  house  of  worship  was  not  made  to 
sew  in,"  to  feel  that  their  conduct  had  given  offense,  and  to 
suppose  that  such  a  gentle  admonition  proceeded  from  anger. 
Mr.  Hicks  says  in  his  first  pamphlet,  that  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  (if 
we  do  not  mistake  his  language,)  "made  a  rude  attack  upon 
the  young  ladies."*5    Now  this  is  what  is  denied  on  the  part 

,  *  "  An  attack  on  certain  young  ladies  by  anquiry  and  reprimand," — Hicks 
Cirtificats* 


of  the  accused,  and  if  the  reader  will  turn  fcack  to  the  testi- 
mony ol  the  young  ladies,  he  will  find  from  the  evidence  they 
arTord  themselves,  that  upon  the  occasion  alluded  to,  every 
word  and  action  of  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  was  precisely  such  as 
would  be  becoming  in  any  minister  of  the  gospel,  under  the 
circumstances.  For  who  would  not  feel  excited  in  his  feel- 
ings upon  finding  a  house  of  worship  for  which  he  had  done 
much,  desecrated  by  being  prostituted  to  secular  purposes, 
such  as  a  house  to  sew  in,  particularly  if  he  had  in  his  heart  a 
zeal  for  godliness?  What  impartial  christian  with  all  this 
weight  ol  testimony  before  him  can  doubt  for  a  moment  that 
Rev.  Wm.  Hicks  done  justice  to  truth,  when  he  asserted  that 
Rev.  A.  Pickens  made  "a  rude  attack  upon  the  young  ladies.'* 
Therefore,  so  far  as  this  is  concerned,  his  pamphlet  ought  to 
stand  convicted  of  falsehood. 

"Item  2nd.,  on  page  4th,  pamphlet  called  "The  Way  the 
Wind  Blows,"  speaks  of  certain  opposers  to  the  Sons,  as  being 
at  the  church  when  the  Sons  went  there  to  organize  their  Di» 
vision." 

Our  remarks.  Let  the  reader  bear  in  mind  that  we  only 
have  Wm.  Hick's  version  of  the  statement  in  his  2nd  pamph- 
let, which  is  said  to  be  so  objectionable.  Not  having  the 
famous  document  at  hand,  we  only  take  what  he  says  in  hi* 
3rd  pamphlet  for  our  guide ;  as  to  his  accuracy  in  statements 
we  presume  the  reader  has  already  made  up  his  opinion. 

Now  Mr. Hicks,  bring  up  your  testimony.    Here  it  is. 

"  Wm.  R.  Baird  was  examined.  He  states  that  when  the 
Sons  arrived,  with  others  for  the  organization  of  the  Division, 
that  Rev.  A.  Pickens  was  in  the  pulpit,  and  others  about,  or  in 
the  church." 

Our  remarks.  This  witness  proves  a  little  too  mtych.  ^e 
states  positively  that  Rev.  A.  Pickens  was  in  the  pulpit,  but  the 


<*  others,"  he  speaks  doubtful  about  For,  say*  he,  they  wer* 
4 about  or  in  the  church."  If  he  knew  they  were  "in"  the 
church,  he  knew  they  were  not  about  the  church.  If  he  knew 
they  were  about  the  church,  he  knew  they  were  not  uin  the 
church."  So  he  tells  a  lame  tale  at  best.  But  don't  forget, 
gentle  reader,  that  Mr.  Hicks,  in  his  pamphlet,  had  said  they 
(the  opposers  to  the  Sons,)  were  in  the  church,  and  in  writing 
down  the  evidence  of  this  witness,  he  underscored  the  word 
*  in"  in  order  that  the  printer  might  print  it  in  italics,  as  he  no 
doubt  believed  that  would  make  it  at  least  took  stronger. 

u  Rev.  M.  M.  Weaver  examined.  He  stated  that  when  he 
and  others  arrived,  there  were  a  good  many  persons  at,  or 
near  the  church,  some  of  whom  were  supposed  to  be  in  the 
opposition.    He  said  that  he  heard  them  speak  in  opposition." 

"A.  G.  Haren,  stated  that  the  above  was  substantially  true." 

Our  remarks.  The  last  two  witnesses  testify  that  there  were 
a  good  many  persons  at,  or  near  the  church,  some  of  whom 
were  supposed  to  be  in  the  opposition.  "  At  or  near,"  differ8 
from  "  about  or  in  "  But  let  them  settle  the  matter  themselves. 
Bring  up  the  next  best  witness. 

'  *  R.  B.  Vance  examined.  He  stated  that  when  he  and  oth- 
ers arrived  at  the  church,  the  Rev.  A.  Pickens  was  in  the 
church,  and  that  others  came  in  immediately  after." 

"J.  T.  Weaver  examined.  He  stated  substantially,  what 
the  last  witness  did." 

Our  remarks.  The  last  two  witnesses  won't  do.  They 
sustain  not  the  pamphlet,  Mr.  Hicks.  Call  up  better  hands  to 
the  bar,  or  your  pamphlet  must  take  a  trip  on  the  "  under- 
ground  rail  road." 

"Two  certificates  were  read  as  proof,  as  follows:  We  do 
hereby  certify,  'hat  when  the  greatest  number  of  those  who 
became  members  of  theReem's  Creek  Division,  (at  the  time 


of  its  organization,)  together  with  some  of  the  members  of  the 
Asheviile'  Division,  got  to  Salem  meeting  house  on  the  even- 
ing that  the  said  Division  was  organized,  there  was  a  number 
of  persons  at  the  church,  the  most  of  whom  were  known  to  be 
dram-drinkers  and  drunkards,  and  opposed  to  the  Sons  of 
Temperance ;  in  addition  to  some  three  or  four  who  had  met 
there  some  time  brfore  the  hour  fixed  upon  for  organizing,  to 
fix  up  the  church  a  little,  these  latter  were  friendly  to  our 
order.  R.  V.  BLACKSTOCK, 

N.  5LACKST.0CIC. 

May  21st  1851" 

"We  do  hereby  certify,  that  when  we  got  to  Salem  meeting 
)iouse,  on  the  evening  that  Reem's  Creek  Division  was  organ-  y 
ized,  there  was  several  persons  pretent^  known  to  be  dram- 
drinkers  and  drunkards,  and  opposed  to  the  Sons. 

J.  M.  ISRAEL, 

W.  W.  McDO'WKLL, 

J.  G.  SAMS." 

May  30th  1851. 

Our  remarks.  We  object  to  these  two  certificates,  because 
Ibey  both  bear  date  about  two  months  before  the  date  of  the 
charges ;  of  course  this  proves  most  conclusively,  that  they 
were  not  written  for  trial;  but  if  written  for  trial,  proves  that 
the  foulest  corruption  was  practised.  But  suppose  we  admit 
for  a  moment  that  the  certificates  were  fit  to  be  presented  on 
trial,  what  do  they  prove  with  regard  to  the  item  under  con- 
sideration ?  Why,  just  about  nothing.  We  are  not  told  who 
the  "opposers"  of  the  Sons  of  Temperance  were,  and  one  of 
the  witnesses,  Rev.  M.  M.  Weaver,  speaks  of  "  some  who 
were  supposed  to  be  in  the  opposition."  Every  thing  is  lack 
ing  here  to  make  out  the  case. 

1st  Who  the  "opposers  of  the  Sons  of  Temperance  "  were. 

2nd.  When  did  the  opposers  arrive? 


70 

3rd.  Who  were  the  Sons,  and  at  what  period  did  they  ar- 
rive ? 

The  proof  is  plain  that  Rev.  A.  Pickens  was  there  at  the 
time  and  place  stated,  but'  that  is  all  that  the  evidence  will 
bring  up  to  the  light  of  truth.  The  Sons,  it  seems,  came  in 
different  companies,  hence  there  is  a  vagueness  here,  that  Mr! 
Hick's  evidence  fails  to  unravel,  and  the  result  is,  nothing  at 
all  is  proved,  except  that  Rev.  A.  Pickens  was  at  the  church 
when  the  Sons  arrived,  which  no  body  denies. 

But  let  us  listen  to  Mr.  Hicks  himseif  on  this  point,  and  see 
how  he  "wriggles?  and  "'flounders?  cm  page  39.  "The  evi- 
dence adduced  in  support  of  the  above  item,  shows  that  when 
some  three  or  four,  who  were  friendly  to  the  Sons,  went  to 
Salem  Meeting  House  to  fix  it  up  a  little,  on  the  evening  that 
the  Reem's  Creek  Division  was  organized,  there  was  no  one 
there  but  the  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  [this  has  been  admitted  all  the 
time,]  that  when  another  company  (and  larger  than  the  former) 
those  persons  in  the  opposition  were  "ai1  and  "  war"  the 
church ;  and  when  another  company  arrived,  some  of  those 
opposers  at  least,  were  "in"  the  church,  so  says  Wm.  R.  Baird, 
(not  so;  Wm.  R.  Baird  does  not  say  "opposers?  he  says 
" others"]  and  W.  W.  McDowell  told  me  the  same.  I  got  my 
information  from  the  last  company  (I  suppose,)  hence  in  writ- 
ing my  first  pamphlet,  1  said  those  persons  were  "  in"  the  house. 
This  was  said  to  be  a  mistake  by  father  Pickens,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  some  who  arrived  with  the  first  two  companies  andj 
they  did  not  correct  it.  Hence,  when  I  wrote  the  second  pam- 
phlet, I  stated  that  those  opposers  were  "at"  or  "near'1  the 
church  when  the  Sons  arrived,  and  appended  a  note,  correct- 
ing my  first  pamphlet,  in  this  particular.  I  also  corrected  it 
in  the  second  edition  of  my  first  pamphlet.  But  father  Pick- 
ens said  the  second  pamphlet  was  false,  ii*  representing  that 


71 

the  opposers  were  there  (or  near)  when  the  Sons  arrived,  If 
the  above  testimony  does  not  prove  that  those  persons  were  "at 
or  near  the  church,"  when  the  Sons  repaired  to  that  place  to 
organize  their  Division,  then  the  pamphlet  is  wrong  in  so  re- 
presenting it,  and  not  eke." 

Our  remarks.  Mr.  Hicks  finds  himself  sadly  in  confusion 
on  this  point.  Neither  he,  nor  his  witnesses  have  defined  who 
the  opposers  of  the  Sons,  were  nor  have  they  told  what  consti- 
tutes an  "  opposer  to  the  Sons."  If  a  man  takes  the  field  open- 
ly, by  writing  and  speaking  publicly  against  them  in  order  to 
block  up  their  way  as  a  fraternity,  of  course,  we  must  regard 
him  as  an  opposer — but  if  he  only  holds  or  entertains  senti- 
ments the  opposite  of  theirs,  and  does  not  take  the  held  of  ac- 
tive, public  opposition  against  them,  it  would  be  unjust  to  call 
such  "opposers."  But  Hicks  has  ensnared  himself  here,  by 
his  effort  to  make  two  specifications  of  one.  The  testimony 
on  the  next  item  will  show  off  his  tactics,  and  as  he  has  failed 
to  prove  his  point  in  this  item,  let  us  follow  on  to  the  next. 

"Item  3rd,  Pamphlet " The  Way  the  Wind  Blows,"  page 
5th,  where  it  is  said  that  the  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  and  others  of 
Questionable  character,  met  at  the  church,  "either  by  express 
understanding')  or  by  a  strange  influence  "  &c — Hicks. 

Now  then,  come  up  to  the  bar  and  testify  and  we  will  attend 
to  your  talk. 

"A.  G.  Haren  stated  that  there  was  an  understanding  that 
the  Sons  were  to  be  opposed  in  their  organization,  and  that  he 
came  to  see  the  fun  of  it.  He  also  stated  that  he  met  Litteral, 
the  Gills,  P.  Black,  and  others,  and  that  some  of  them  were 
dram  drinkers,  and  that  they  said  that  they  knew  Rev.  A. 
Pickens  was  at  the  church." 

Our  remarks.  This  witness  "can't  quite  come  it:'  Not 
one  word  does  he  tell  that  will  bear  upon  the  item.    Not  one 


ii 

word  does  he  tell  about  "an  express  understanding,"  or 
*  strange  influence  "  His  testimony  would  have  fitted  better 
if  put  in  at  some  other  place. 

"The  certificate  of  A.  A.  Williams  was  read.  I  do  hereby 
certify  that  I  was  at  the  corn  shucking  at  A.  .!.  Gill's,  on  the 
day  that  the  Reerri's  Creek  Division  was  organized  at  night» 
and  heard  the  company  say  that  ihe  R°v.  A.  Pickens  was  go- 
ing to  oppose  the  or  ganization  that  hight. 

May  29th,  1S5L"  A.  A.  WILLIAMS. 

Our  remarks'.  Now  gentle  reader  notice  the  manner  in 
which  these  t\vo  l&st  witnesses  testify.  They  do  not  tell  what 
they  know  about  ?he  "express  understanding,"  or  "strange 
influence,"  that  Mr.  Hicks  say  brought  Rev.  A.  Pickens  and 
the  dram  drinkeis  together  to  oppose  the  Sons,  but  they  only 
tell  what  they  had  heard.    Alas!  for  the  cause  of  Mr.  Hicks! 

"Certificate  of  R.  H.  Davis,  which  he  said  was  true,  was 
then  read  as  follows :  I  do  hereby  certify  that  I  was  at  the 
corn  shucking  at  A.  J.  Gill's  on  the  day  that  Reem's  Creek 
Division  was  organized  at  night,  and  there  heard  the  compa- 
ny (several  of  them)  say  that  the  Rev.  A.  Pickens  was  to  be 
at  the  church  that  night,  to  oppose  the  organization,  and  that 
they  were  going  over  to  see  that  he  got  fair  play.  Some  of 
them  said  that  they  would  fight— that  blood  would  be  spilt  if 
they  undertook  to  put  uncle  Andy  out. 

May  29th,  1851."  R.  H.  DAVIS. 

Our  remarks.  The  two  preceeding  certificates  are  of  the 
patent  right  order  of  Hicks,  Sullins,  &  Co.,  that  is,  the  dates 
show  that  they  are  much  older  than  the  charges — they  bear 
date,  May  29th,  and  the  charges  are  dated  July  25th.  Al- 
though these  certificates  were  born  out  of  wedlock,  and  desti* 
\ute  of  legal  parentage,  still  they  prove  nothing.  Not  one 
word  do  they  say  about  an  "express  understanding"  between 


73 


Rev.  A.  Pickens  and  any  body  else  to  meet  at  the  church  to  op- 
pose the  organization  of  the  Sons ;  nor  do  they  even  name  any 
"strange  influence"  as  operating,  that  brought  them  together. 
They  only  tell  what  they  heard  some  body  say  !  t  Hearsay  evi- 
dence admitted  on  the  trial  of  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South  !!  Why,  surely,  religious 
and  ministerial  character  must  be  quite  common  and  low  in 
that  church,  that  Madame  Rumor  is  psrmitted  to  come  into 
court  and  prattle  with  her  noisy  tongue!  But  something  had 
to  be  done  to  save  Mr.  Hicks  from  sinking,  and  this  was  about 
all  that  could  be  done — it  was  the  best  evidence  he  had,  if  it 
was  the  common  hearsay-tattle  of  the  neighborhood.  But  wa 
suppose  that  in  Cavy  Sullin's  court  it  was  quite  a  lawful  com- 
modity. 

Let  us  have  more  testimony.    Here  it  comes". 

"  Certificate  of  James  H.  Weaver,  was  read  as  follows:  I 
do  hereby  certify  that  A.  J.  Gill  and  I,  were  talking  a  few  days 
before  the  Reem's  Creek  Division  was  organized,  about  the 
propriety  of  organizing  in  the  church.  He  (Gill)  remarked 
that  Andrew  Pickens,  as  one  61  the  Trustees,  would  oppose 
the  meeting,  for  the  purpose  of  organizing  a  Division  in  the 
church.  I  said  that  if  pickens  was  in  the  church  when  they 
assembled,  and  did  not  give  way  for  them,  he  wotfld  be  forced 
out  of  the  bouse.  Gill  said  that  there  would  be  more  to  be 
forced  out  besides  Pickens ;  and  added,  that  if  ha  (Gill)  were 
there,  and  they  undertook  tb  fore*  any  body  out,  there  would 
be  blood  spilt ;  that  he  had  a  right  to  go  into  that  church,  and 
would  ask  no  man  any  odds, 

May,  1851  J.  H.  WEAVER." 

Our  remarks.  This  is  another  patent-right  certificate. — 
Look  at  its  date ;  that  tells  a  tale.  But  what  does  it  prove  ? 
Nothing,  but  what  A.  J.  Gill  said.    It  doe*  not  even  prove 


74 


that  A.  J.  G  ill's  information  came  from  any  reliable  source  at 
all.  For  any  thing  the  reader  knows  A.  J.  Gill  may  have 
dreamed  what  he  says  about  Rev.  A.  Pickens ;  and  no  man 
can  avoid  dreaming,  and  some  men  tell  dreams.  The  above 
certificate  is  full  of  Hicksism,  from  beginning  to  end — that  is 
proves  nothing. 

"  Certificate  of  Joshua  Haren  was  read  as  follows :  I  do 
hereby  certify  that  to  my  own  knowledge,  it  was  well  under- 
stood by  the  people  of  this  neighborhood,  that  the  Reem's 
Creek  Division  was  to  be  opposed  in  its  organization  by  the 
Rev.  A.  Pickens  at  Salem  Meeting  House,  and  that  I  sent 
him  word  by  his  daughter,  a  few  days  before  the  time  of  or- 
ganizing, to  stand  up  to  his  rack,  and  not  let  them  organize 
there. — that  I  would  be  with  him  there. — and  the  day  after  the 
organization  he  said  to  me, ' 1  thought  you  were  to  have  been 
here  yesterday  evening.'  My  opposition  was  from  prudential 
reasons."  his 

JOSHUA  X  HAREN. 

July  30th,  1851.  mark. 

Our  remarks.  This  last  certificate  is  quite  a  novel  thing 
indeed  to  read  in  committee  in  order  to  prove  there,  that  Rev. 
A.  Pickens  and  others  (dram-drinkers  or  drunkards  I  believe 
Mr.  Hicks  means)  met  at  the  church  by  "  express  understand- 
ing" or  by  a  "  strange  influence."  He  says,  "  it  was  well  un- 
derstood in  the  neighborhood  that  Rev.  A.  Pickens  was  to  op- 
pose the  Sons  in  their  organization,"  but  he  does  not  tell  how, 
or  by  what  means  this  was  known.  As  to  an  understanding 
between  Rev.  A.  Pickens  and  others  on  this  point,  he  tells  no- 
thing— for,  we  suppose  he  knows  nothing. 

He  does  indeed  say  "it  was  well  understood  by  (he  people 
of  this  neighborhood  that  the  Reem's  Creek  Division  was  to 
be  opposed  in  its  organization  by  the  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  at  Sa- 


75 

lem  Meeting  House,'5  and  that  he  had  "  sent  him  word  to  stand 
up  to  his  rack,"  but  all  that  proves  nothing  as  regards  the 
specification.  He  does  not  pretend  to  say  how  this  under- 
standing about  the  opposition  to  the  Sons  was  effected — wheth- 
er or  not,  it  was  "  express?  And  any  word  he  might  see  pro- 
per to  send  to  Rev.  A.  Pickens  can  have  nothing  to  do  in  the 
matter.  The  reader  then  can  see  that  the  entire  testimony  on 
this  point  is  nothing  but  Hicksism  and  chaff,  in  toto. 

"Item  4th,  of  the  pamphlet,  where  it  is  represented  that  the 
Rev.  A.  Pickens  and  Maj.  A.  H.  Brittain  made  friends." 

Now  then,  come  up  gentlemen,  and  we  will  hear  your  talk. 

"  Allen  Fox  examined.  He  states  that  Maj.  A.  H.  Brittain 
took  offense  at  a  sermon  Rev.  A.  Pickens  preached  at  Flat 
Creek.    He  thinks  they  are  now  friendly." 

"The  following  certificate  was  read:  1  do  hereby  certify 
that  for  some  twelve  months  previously  to  the  time  that  Maj. 
A.  H.  Brittain  spoke  against  the  Sons  at  Flat  Creek,  he  and 
Rev.  A.  Pickens  were  at  enmity.        W.  T.  BRITTAIN. 

July  2nd  1851"' 

Our  remarks.  The  last  two  witnesses  don't  quite  come  up 
to  the  point.  They  do  not  pretend  to  tell  us  how  they  knew, 
or  by  what  they  knew  the  parties  to  be  at  varience,  and  as  to 
come  up  to  the  point,  and  tell  us  when,  where,  or  how,  they 
made  friends  they  do  not — they  entirely  dodge  off.  'Tis  true, 
Mr.  Fox  tells  us,  "he  thinks  they  are  friendly."  But  that  is 
nothing  to  the  point.  Suppose  I  should  say  I  think  Mr.  Fox 
has  three  fingers  more  |on  one  hand  than  the  other.  Every 
body  knows  that  could  not  be  regarded  as  evidence.  Even  so 
with  Mr.  Fox's  testimony. 

P.  Roberts  examined.  He  stated  that  Rev,  A.  Pickens  and 
Maj.  A.  H.  Brittain  were  rather  at  enmity  after  the  said  ser- 
mon  was  preached." 


76 


Our  remarks.  What  reasons  had  Mr.  Roberts  for  saying 
those  two  persons  u  were  rather  at  enmity  V  He  does  not  pre- 
lend  to  tell  us.  Did  they  ever  make  friends  ?  He  says  nothing 
about  that. 

"Rev.  M.  M.  Weaver,  J.  T.  Weaver,  and  J.  R.  Weaver,  ail 
stated  that  they  knew  nothing  of  the  facts,  as  stated  by  the 
foregoing  witnesses." 

Our  remarks.  The  above  is  all  the  evidence  produced  upon 
trial  before  the  committee,  to  sustain  the  specification.  Who 
oould,  with  such  chaff,  then,  as  the  above  testimony  affords, 
have  pronounce^  the  item  in  the  court,  sustained  or  proved  ? 
But,  do  not  be  surprised  gentle  reader,  Mr.  Suilin's  committee 
j^eclare  it  as  their  opinion  that  it  was  fully  sustained.  Won- 
derful indeed !  But  Wm.  Picks  said  of  the  testimony,  4<  the 
above  is  ample.''  Let  us  then  not  be  surprised.  We  now 
proceed  to  notice  a  certificate  produced  by  the  defense  before 
the  Quarterly  Conference,  when  the  case  was  brought  up  there 
for  final  adjudication.  The  witness  is  Major  Brittain  himself 
who  of  course  knows  what  is  what  in  the  case.    Hear  him. 

u  This  is  to  certify  that  tjiere  never  was  a  cross,  or  hard 
word  passed  between  myself  ar}d  the  Rev.  Andrew  Pickens 
in  our  lives,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection.  We  neither  had 
a  falling  out  nor  a  making  of  friends. 

August  5th,  1851.  A.  H.  BRITTAIN." 

Our  remarks.  Every  body  who  reads  this  certificate  of  the 
Major,  must  regard  it  as  conclusive,  Hicksism  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding.  But  Mr.  Hicks,  it  seems,  had  another  certi- 
ficate which  he  did  not  deem  proper  to  present  when  the  case 
came  up  in  the  Quarterly  Conference,  but  he  has  seen  fit  to 
put  it  in  his  pamphlet.  Perhaps  the  reason  why  it  was  not 
brought  before  the  Quarterly  Conference,  is  to  be  found  in  this : 
"  Caution  is  the  parent  of  safety."    Here  it  is. 


77 

"September  11th  1851.  I  do  hereby  certify  that  from  all  I 
have  seen  and  heard,  at  different  times,  the  Rev.  A.  Pickena 
and  A.  H.  Brittain  were  in  a  state  of  the  most  bitter  enmity 
for  no  short  length  of  time,  and  that  what  the  Rev.  W.  Hicks 
has  written  concerning  their  enmity  is  true  to  the  letter,  and 
cannot  be  gainsayed.  In  witness  whereof,  I  subscribe  my 
name.  1  MIRA  B.  BRITTAIN." 

Oyr  remarks.  This  certificate  does  not  tell  us  what  was 
"seen?  or  What  was  " heard"  One  thing  is  evident  from  its 
language,  and  that  is,  it  was  written  to  save  and  defend  the 
falling  reputation  of  Wm.  Hicks.  And  we  are  fully  persuad- 
ed that  Mira  B.  Brittain  never  penned  it,  although  she  may 
have  signed  it.  In  every  respect  it  is  chaff,  as  applied  to  the 
case.  And  as  it  was  read  neither  before  the  committee  nor 
the  Quarterly  Conference,  it  could  have  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  decisions  made  in  the  case. 

We  have  now  gone  through  with  our  review  of  the  whole 
amount  of  evidence  produced  against  and  for  the  accused t 
both  before  the  committee  and  also  before  the  Querteriy  Con- 
ference, except  one  certificate  signed  "  Wm.  Edwards,"  pro- 
duced by  the  defense  before  the  Quarterly  Conference.  As 
the  evidence  against  the  accused,  is  such  as  to  satisfy  every- 
body of  innocence  of  the  accused  upon  the  point,  we  deemed 
it  useless  to  pen  down  Mr.  Edward's  certificate. 

Now  then,  reader,  you  have  heard  all  this  array  of  testimo- 
ny drought  up  against  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  the  old  gray  headed 
minister,  of  forty  years  standing,  and  you  have  looked  at  it,  as 
we  have  been  reviewing  or  analyzing  the  same ;  and  now  you 
are  brought  to  the  verdict  of  the  committee.  But  don't  be  sur- 
prised !  Do  not  be  surprised ! !  They  had  their  work  to  perform* 
Wm.  Hicks  must  be  saved  or  he  must  sink.  If  a  victim  could 
not  be  sacrificed,  poor  Mr.  Hicks  would  be  a  ruined  man. 


78 


Now  then,  let  us  hear  the  verdict  of  the  committee  of  Hicks, 
Sailing,  &  Co.    Here  it  comes  in  all  its  shame. 

u  We,  the  committee  appointed  to  investigate  the  charges 
prefered  against  Rev.  A.  Pickens,  beg  leave  to  make  the  fol- 
lowing report,  viz  :  after  weighing  and  duly  considering  all 
the  testimony  in  the  case,  we  agree  that  the  evidence  fully  sus- 
fains  the  charges.  JACOB  REYNOLDS. 

JACOB  WEAVER, 
J.  S.  BURNETT. 

R.  B.  Vance,  SecP 

Well  now,  gentle  reader,  you  have  read  all  the  evidence  in 
the  case  and  heard  in  conclusion  this  most  extraordinary  re- 
port of  the  committee — no  doubt,  but  you  are  more  than  as- 
tonished to  find  that  these  three  committee-men  had  the  effron- 
tery in  this  community,  to  say  in  their  verdict  that  "the  evi- 
dence fully  sustains  the  charges"  But,  mark  you  gentle 
reader,  they  had  their  master's  work  to  do  and  must  not  shrink 
from  the  task.  Major  Brittain  had  been  sacrificed,  but  still 
William  Hicks  was  not  redeemed  from  his  ridiculous  dilemma. 
Another,  and  older  victim  was  needed.  Rev.  A.  Pickens  was 
the  man.  He  must  be  sacrificed  upon  the  altar  of  Hick's  am- 
bition, or  the  Presiding  Elder  must  sink.  The  men  were  se- 
lected for  the  work,  and  the  work  was  done.  Here  is  its  his- 
tory. Alas!  Alas!!  for  religion,  when  such  deeds  are  done 
by  men  professing  to  wear  its  sacred  mantle.  If  such  con- 
duct, or  such  actions  had  taken  place  in  Barebone's  parlia- 
ment, some  apology  might  have  been  framed  for  it,  on  account 
of  the  darkness  of  the  age,  or  the  ignorance  of  the  times,  but 
in  this  case,  it  must  be  evident  to  the  mind  of  the  reader,  that 
malice  is  the  only  plea  that  truth  will  admit. 

Let  the  reader  bear  in  mind  that  this  shameful  church  trial, 
so  called,  took  place  on  August  6th,  1851,  while  Rev.  A.  Pick- 


79 


ens  was  confined  at  home  by  sickness.  He  was  suspended 
by  Rev.  David  Sullins,  until  the  next  Quarterly  Conference 
which  was  to  meet  on  the  13th  of  September,  before  which 
time  brother  Pickens  seen  proper  to  unite  himself  with  a  soci- 
ety of  Seceders,  who  had  organized  themselves  into  a  Meth- 
odist Protestant  Chnrch,  according  to  the  constitution  of  said 
church — and  said  church  with  its  minister,  was  regularly  re- 
cognized and  received  in  a  few  days  afterwards,  by  the  Quar- 
terly Conference  of  Cleaveland  Circuit,  as  a  constitutional 
Methodist  Protestant  Church,  duly  organized,  Wm.  Hick's 
letters  of  menace,  to  the  ministers,  and  Quarterly  Conference* 
to  the  contrary,  notwithstanding. 

On  the  13th  day  of  September,  1851,  the  Qnarterly  Confer- 
ence for  Burnsviile  Circuit,  met,  and  in  addition  to  the  report 
of  the  committee  who  had  acted  on  the  trial  of  Rev.  A.  Pick- 
ens, Rev.  David  Sullins  handed  in  another  charge  against  the 
accused.    Here  it  is. 

"  Charge  4th.  With  contempt  of  the  constituted  authorities 
of  the  church." 

"  Specification  1st.  In  preaching  between  the  time  he  was 
cited  to  trial,  and  the  time  of  the  investigation  of  his  case  by 
the  committee." 

u  Specification  2nd.  In  preaching  since  his  suspension  by 
committee." 

Our  remarks.  Does  a  mere  citation  to  trial  upon  an  accu- 
sation, strip  a  man  of  rights  and  privileges  without  any  trial, 
in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South  ?  If  it  does,  we  do 
!  not  understand  very  well  the  use  of  trying  a  minister,  as  accor- 
ding to  the  strange  doctrine,  his  functions  had  been  taken 
iaway  from  him  by  the  mere  citation.  What  wonderful  pow- 
ers these  traveling  preachers  of  the  Methoeist  Episcopal  Church 
'South,  claim  and  exercise !  But  from  what  had  been  devei- 


so 

oped  upon  our  review  of  the  proceedings  of  the  trial  in  the 
committee  below,  the  reader  no  doubt  is  prepared,  very  well, 
to  understand  this  last  charge  in  the  Quarterly  Conference* 
Rev.  Wm.  Hicks,  tells  us  in  his  3rd  pamphlet,  that  "  A.  G* 
Anderson  and  Rev.  Jacob  Weaver,  were  then  examined  with 
regard  to  the  truth  of  the  fourth  charge  prefered  against  the 
Rev.  A.  Pickens."  He  does  not  inform  his  readers  what  these 
witnesses  said,  but  simply  tells  us  their  testimony  "was  con- 
clusive of  the  fact,  that  the  Rev.  A.  Pickens  had  preached  as 
so  charged  ;"  but  in  the  hurry  of  business,  after  the  session  had 
been  protracted  to  a  late  hour  at  night,  the  vote  was  not  taken 
on  those  specifications,  and  the  general  charge.  So  the  charge 
rests."  This  is  strange  business  indeed,  as  the  testimony  had 
been  heard ;  but,  perhaps,  as  the  arrangements  of  Hicks,  Sul- 
lins,  &  Co.,  were  sufficiently  settled  to  secure  the  old  minis- 
ter's condemnation,  they  thought  it  a  useless  vote,  to  vote  on 
the  last  charge.    Mr.  Hicks  again  tells  us  : 

"  The  evidence  being  closed,  for  and  against  brother  Pickens 
he  (the  said  Pickens)  proceeded  to  make  his  defense  in  person. 
After  which,  the  preacher  in  charge,  made  a  speech  in  behalf 
oi  the  church,  and  the  accused  replied." 

"The  decision  of  the  committee  in  the  case  of  Rev.  A. 
Pickens,  was  confirmed ;  and,  on  motion,  the  said  Andrew 
Pickens  was  expelled  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Chnrch, 
South.  Whereupon,  the  Presiding  Elder  announced  the  said 
expulsion  to  the  Conference  in  clue  form ;  and  A.  Pickens, 
stating  that  ho  would  not  appeal  to  the  ensuing  annual  Con- 
ference, the  Presiding  Elder,  demanded  his  credentials,  which 
he  refused  to  surrender." 

Signed,  W.  HICKS,  P.  E. 

DAVID  SULLINS,  P.  C. 
J.  H.  R.  PATTERSON  L.  D. 
THOMAS  GIBBS,  L.  E. 


si 

eLisha  garland,  l.  p. 

J.  C.  KEENER,  St. 
riAVID  PROFFIT,  St. 

j.  w.  Mcelroy  St. 

A.  G.  ANDERSON,  St. 

IRA  CROUD ER,  C.  L. 

R.  F.  BAKER,  St. 

H.  P,  CORN,  C.  L. 

GRAY  BRIGGS,  St.' 

MICHAEL  KELLER,  C.  t. 

GUTHRIDGE  GARLAND  C.L. 
J.  W.  McEliIoy;  Special  Secretary. 
September  lWi,  1851." 

The  preceeding  array  of  names  in  the  form  of  official  sig- 
hatures,  are  appended  to  the  final  action  of  the  Quarterly  Con- 
ference, as  if  to  impart  solemnity  to  the  occasion ;  and,  fortu^ 
nately  for  the  cause  of  truth  and  justice,  the  public  thereby 
are  enabled  to  find  out  who  the  characters  are,  that  had  the 
bnblemishing  effrontery  thus  to  undertake  to  sacrifice  the  aged 
fanfiriister  of  forty  years  standing  upon  the  alter  of  Wm.  Hick's 
iwalice,  in  order  to  save  him  from  that  dilemma  in  which  his 
own  conduct  had  placed  him.  We  will  simply  remark  here, 
Uiat  Rev.  A.  Pickens  had  no  right  to  take  an  appeal  to  the 
Annual  Conference,  because  he  belonged  to  another  com- 
munion at  the  time,  and  upon  the  same  ground  he  had  no 
right  to  make  any  surrender  of  credentials  upon  the  demand 
of  Wm.  Hicks. 

The  reader  has  now  gone  over  the  history  of  these  proceed- 
ings, and  there  is  but  one  more  item  relating  to  the  trial  to 
which  we  are  disposed  to  call  attention,  and  that  is  the  manner 
in  which  the  committee  of  trial,  and  also  the  Quarterly  Con- 
ference were  eompo.-ed. 

1st.  The  committee  of  trial  was  composed  of  three  ideal 
preachers,  chosen  by  the  preacher  in  charge,  who  was;  aisd  the 


S2 

prosecutor,  as  well  as  judge  in  the  ease ;  the  accused  having 
fw  right  to  object  to  any  one  of  the  number  upon  any  grounds. 
This  is  old  Methodist  discipline. 

2nd.  The  Quarterly  Conference  was  composed  of  fifteen 
members  including  Wm.  Hicks,  and  David  Siillins,  and  teri 
of  the  body  were  Class-leaders  and  Stewards.  Now  let  it  be 
borne  in  mind  that  Class-leaders  are  always  appointed  and  re- 
moved by  the  preacher  in  charge,  at  his  will  and  pleasure,  and 
no  man  allowed  to  say  yea  or  nay,  and  the  Stewards  are  al- 
ways nominated  by  the  preacher  in  charge,  and  eleCtedVby  the 
Quarterly  Conference,  it  becomes  at  once  apparent  that  in  the 
Methodist  Episeopal  Church,  the  preacher  in  charge  will  find 
ho  difficult]/  in  making  out  a  majority  to  carry  any  measure 
he  may  desire.  And  therefore,  upon  this  same  principle,  the 
reader  will  be  able  to  find  the  key  by  which  to  unlock  the 
mystery  of  the  result  of  the  trial  of  Rev.  A.  Pickens. 

The  conduct  of  Wm.  Hicks  has  been  prominent  through- 
out these  pages.  We  first  find  him  lauding'  the  purity  of  the 
character  of  Rev.  A.  Pickens.  In  the  next  place  we  find  him 
endeavoring  to  shift  the  blame  from  his  own  shoulders,  and 
striving  to  throw  it  on  the  shoulders  of  Rev.  A.  Pickens.  In 
the  next  place  we  find  him  figuring  away  in  trying  to  sacri- 
fice Maj.  A.  H.  Brittain,  a  member  of  church,  in  order  to  save 
himself  from  the  odium  which  his  conduct  was  bringing  down 
upon  his  own  head.  Again,  we  find  him  all  the  time  printing 
and  circulating  pamphlets  and  circulars,  traducing  and  villi- 
fying  men  better  than  himself*  All  these  things  making  his 
own  case  grow  worse,  we  find  him  at  last  bringing  about,  and 
effecting  the  trial  and  expulsion  of  Rev.  A.  Pickens.  And, 
finally,  although  wearing  the  office  of  a  minister  of  the  gos- 
pel>  when  all  modesty  had  been  lost,  and  all  refinement  of 
feeling  had  been  abandoned,  we  find  him,  condescending  to 


as 

the  level  of  a  scavenger  of  scandal,  by  publishing  in  Ms 
pamphlet  the  trial  and  so-called  expulsion  of  Rev.  A.  Pickens 
(the  minister  so  much  his  superior  in  usefulness,)  and  circula- 
ting the  same  through  the  country  to  the  prejudice  of  that  ven», 
erable,  long-tried,  and  well  known  man.  Is  not  this  narrative 
sufficient  to  cause  the  blush  of  shame  to  suffuse  on  the  cheek 
of  every  lover  of  justice  or  religion?  Alas!  for  the  church!  J 
Alas  for  Christianity  when  her  ministers  thus  abandon  their 
calling. 

We  regret  that  we  are  compelled  thus  to  record  the  miscon- 
duct of  one  whose  actions  should  have  been  in  unison  with 
his  office,  byt  striving'  to  do  justice  to  the  truth,  and  defend  tlie 
innocent,  we  have  written  what  we  have  written-  Hick's  pamph- 
lets and  circulars  were  too  numerous  in  the  country,  and  too 
little  identified  with  either  truth  or  justice,  to  suffer  them  to 
pass  without  a  reply.    Hence  we  have  written. 

But  one  more  item  of  Hick's  3rd  pamphlet  will  be  noticed 
and  then  we  shall  close.  It  stands  on  page  52,  and  reads 
thus: 

"It  would  seem  that  the  North  Carolina  Methodist  Protest 
tants  thinks  that  a  minister  once  made  cannot  be  unmade  ex- 
cept by  themselves !  Have  they  not  compromised  the  charac- 
ter, and  integrity  of  their  church  by  their  course  in  Buncombe? 
But  an  apology  suggests  itself;  a  large  number  of  their  min- 
isters and  members  were  where  the  Quarterly  Conference  of 
the  Burnsville  Circuit  left  father  Pickens,  when  the  Methodist 
Protestant  Church  took  them  up,  and  it  is  natural  and  meet, 
that  they  extend  to  him  a  '.brother's  hand,  and  a  brother's  wel- 
come.'" 

Our  remarks.  This  paragraph  is  false  and  slanderoias.-r 
And  I  declare  its  character  to  be  such  before  the  world.  The 
Methodist  Protestant  Church  in  North  Carolina  numbers  some 


84 


thing  over  5,000  mem^rs.  The  ministry  belonging  to  th£ 
Annual  Conference  numbers  29.  I  think  I  am  acquainted 
with  every  one  of  them  personally.  And  I  here  declare  from 
rny  personal  knowledge,  that  but  two  of  them  only,  were  re- 
garded  or  looked  upon  as  expelled  by  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  from  her  fellowship.  One  of  them,  Rev.  C.  Drake, 
was  expelled  thus :  he  had  adopted  the  sentiments  of  the 
Methodist  Reformers,  and  desired  a  change  in  the  government 
of  the  church,  so  as  to  admit  of  republican  principles  in  the 
system.  This  was  an  offense.  Suspicion  had  not  blown  her 
foul  breath  upon  his  moral  character.  But  the  preaaher  in 
charge  came  around,  called  for  the  class-paper,  made  a  new 
one,  leaving  off  the  name  of  the  minister,  and  called  him  ex- 
pelled ! !  Was  he  expelled  Mr.  Hicks  ?  (See  history  Methodist 
Protestant  Church,  page  220.)  The  other  one  to  whom  we 
alluded  was  expelled,  but  we  know  nothing  about  the  trans- 
action. Here  then  is  one  minister  among  us  turned  out  by 
the  "scratch  law,"  and  another  that  had  been  expelled,  I  know 
not  how,  nor  for  what.  Mr.  Hicks  pretends  that  Rev.  A.  Pick 
ens  was  justly  expelled  from  the  ministry.  I  deny  it,  and  I 
suppose  numbers  of  the  communicants  in  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  do  the  same.  He  came  into  the  Methodist  Pro- 
testant Church  in  connection  with  a  constitutionally  organiz- 
ed church,  received  by  the  Cleaveland  Quarterly  Conference. 
But  the  shameful  featnre  in  Mr.  Hick's  statement,  is  the  asser- 
tion that  "a  large  number  of  the  ministers  and  members  of 
the  Methodist  Protestant  church,  were  where  the  Burnsville 
Quarterly  Conference  left  Rev.  A.  Pickens."  Well,  we  have 
to  say  there  were  two  ministers— the  case  of  one  has  a  place 
in  history. — and  we  have  heard  pf  only  two  laymen,  Maj.  A. 
H.  Brittain  and  P.  W.  Edwards. 
Now  then,  in  conclusion,  if  these  four  persons  form 


8«, 


pRGE  number  of  the  ministers  and  members"  of  the  Metho- 
dist Protesrant  church  in  I^orth  Carolina,  Mr.  Hick's  declara- 
tion is  trjie — but  if  not,  bis  assertion  is  false  and  slanderous. 

Now  in  conclusion.,  gentle  reader,  what  think  you  of  the 
government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South  ?  Have 
you  not  seen  in  this  narrative  how  easy  it  is  for  the  itinerant 
ministers,  in  whose  hands  the  whole  power  is  lodged,  to  carry 
any  point  they  choose.  If  they  wish  to  expell  any  member, 
or  local  minister,  in  order  to  get  him  out  of  the  way,  they  can 
select  their  men  to  do  it,  and  he  had.no  right  to  object,  to  any 
committee-men  on  his  case — his  worst  enemy  may  sit  upon  it 
and  he  cannot  have  him  removed  if  the  preacher  in  charge 
wishes  him  to  sit.  Is  this  the  republicanism  of  America  ?  No, 
sir.  It  is  despotism.  And  if  republicanism  be  right  in  State, 
it  is  also  right  in  church.  If  despotism  be  wrong  in  State,  it 
^s  also  wrong  in  church. 

Reader,  pause  and  consider.  You  are  an  American.  Our. 
fathers  fought  and  bled  for  liberty  both  civil  and  religious,  and 
we  are  their  heirs.  Let  us  then,  love  both  alike,  and  contend 
for.  blood  bought  republicanism,  both  in  church  and  State,  for 
tyrany  is  hateful^  and  despotism  dbom'mahle,  wherever  found, 
and  may  heaven  forbid  that  our  shoulders  should  ever  support 
fitjier. 


v. 


APPENDIX- 

I  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood  that  when  we  met  at 
Salem  Church,  on  the  day  of  A.  H.  Brittain's  trial,  it  was  td 
attend  to  the  business  of  the  church,  or  at  least  that  was  ex- 
pected by  the  greater  pan  of  tHem  that  were  there — but  it  was 
soon  discovered  that  Hicks  and  Ragan,  and  others,  cared  but 
little  for  the  church,  so  they  could  get  the  Sons  of  Temperance 
promoted.  I  will  now  show  the  reader  how  they  treated  A. 
H.  Brittain.  In  the  first  place,  Maj.  Brittain  presented  a  res- 
olution at  Flat  Creek  school-house,  when  there  was  a  meeting 
there  for  the  purpose  of  compromising  the  difficulty,  as  Hickti 
said  that  had  lasted  sufficiently  long.  At  that  meeting  Maj. 
Brittain  gave  iticks  his  sop.  He  there  took  up  the  Bible  and 
proved  that  he  had  violated  the  law  of  God,  arid  then  took  the 
Discipline  and  showed  where  he  had  violated  the  rules  of  the 
church,  and  alter  they  had  gone  through  the  debate,  the  Maj. 
then  presented  some  resolutions,  and  had  them  adopted.  The 
offensive  one  was:  "Resolved,  that  we  will  not  support  any 
preacher,  (naming  the  various  denominations,)  that  will  gb 
into  reveling  and  idolatry.  I  believe  the  whole  assembly  voted 
for  its  passage  except  Hicks  and  Jacob  Weaver,  (perhaps  one 
br  two  more,  but  I  am  not  certain  that  there  were  any  more.) 
Is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  there  is,  in  Christendom,  a  mart 
that  would  oppose  that  resolution  ?  Does  not  his  and  Weaver's 
conduct  prove  to  the  world  that  they  were  guilty  of  such  con- 


2 

duct?  How  much  like  Hal  and  his  prophets!!  Major  Brittairt 
did  not  speak  evil  of  the  ministers  of  Christ,  but  ministers  of 
idols.  He  did  not  enveigh  against  discipline;  but  against  those 
who  violated  the  rules  of  discipline.  Instead  of  enveighing, 
he  was  trying  to  protect  the  rules.  Here,  let  it  be  observed^ 
the  power  that  belong  to  the  ministers  of  trie  MethodiBt  Epis- 
copal Church,  wri'en  they  become  offended,  those  who  give  the 
offense,  have  but  little  chance ;  and  those  who  will  keep  iri 
favor  with  the  Preacher,  can  do  what  they  please,  and  iC  is 
hard  to  get  them  out  of  the  church. 

Let  the  reader  examine  the  charges.  Husk's  say3  in  sti'b* 
stence,  but  the  question  is;  what  produced  the  substdrice! 
What  did  Britlain  say  ?  Hicks  says  in  substance.  It  brings 
to  my  mind  what  the  reader  may  find  recorded  iri  2nd  Thes- 
salonians,  2nd  Chapter,  4th  verse.  He  seems  to  think  that  he 
can  make  a  substance  out  of  nothing.  1  think  trial  the  reader 
is  puzzled  to  find  out  upon  what  those  charges  are  founded— 
or  what  evidence  the  committee  had  to  find  him  guilty.  The* 
fact  is  he  was  cleared  by  the  comrriiffee,  bdt  in  substance  was 
found  guilty  by  Ragan  ;  for,  if  I  arri  riot  mistaken,  (and  I  do 
not  believe  that  I  am,)  the  corrimittee  had  cleared  him  on  the 
two  first,  and  was  aboiit  to  clear  hirri  of  the  third,  but  Ragari 
said  to  them  that  if  they  did  hot  find  him  guilty  on  the  last 
charge,  he  would  keep  them  there  all  night,  and  one  of  therri 
lived  12  or  13  miles  from  the  place,  and  had  to  go  home  that 
night,  and  it  was  then  getting  dark.  I  learned  this  from  one 
of  the  committee. 

It  was  contrary  to  all  laws,  both  civil  and  divine,  and  I 
heard  Hicks  tell  A.  H.  B attain,  that  Ragan  had  no  rule  for 
staying  with  the  committee.    But  Preachers  have  tneir  owri 

way  of  doing  business. 


3 


When  the  evidence  was  given  in,  they  called  on  J.S.  Weav- 
er to  plead  in  behalf  of  the  church.  I  then  objected  to  that 
course,  by  saying  that  the  Preacher  in  charge,  if  he  wished  to 
do  so,  could  give  the  committee  such  instruction  as  he  might 
think  was  proper  to  give  them ;  but  Hicks  said,  "  I  say  it  shall 
be  so,"  or  words  to  that  effect.  A  new  thing  under  the  sun  for 
a  Presiding  Elder  to  act  as  Class-leader,  and  Circuit  Preach - 
ef,  and  be  Judge  in  class,  and  circuit,  and  Quarterly  Confer- 
ence, and  to  be  his  own  witness.  I  wonder  who  could  not 
prove  every  thing  he  wishes,  when  he  can  write  out  his  own 
certificate,  and  wrrite  certificates  for  others,  and  get  them  to 
sign  them,  just  to  suit  his  own  purposes  ? 

Hicks  complains  of  Maj  Brittain  and  myself,  trying  to  injure 

him.    Did  any  person  ever  hear  Brittain  or  myself  say  a  dis- 
respectful word  about  him  till  after  he  had  commenced  his 
diabolical  crusade  against  us,  in  trying  to  destroy  my  charac- 
ter as  a  minister  of  the  church,  and  because  he  could  not  do  it, 
he  thought  he  would  try  the  sympathy  of  the  people,  by  com- 
plaining that  he  was  a  stranger.    Ought  he  not  to  have  known 
how  strangers  ought  to  behave  themselves  in  order  to  be  re- 
spected, and  not  act  like  some  run-mad  simpleton,  that  had 
been  raised  where  people  did  not  know  how  they  ought  to 
behave  ?  But,  I  suppose  he  must  be  excused,  for  it  seems  be- 
cause he  is  Presiding  Elder,  every  body  must  pull  off  their 
hats  and  bow  to  him.    Major  Brittain  and  the  old  minister 
had  too  much  sense,  then,  to  disgrace  themselves  to  satisfy  such 
a  creature  as  Wm.  Hicks.    I  have  lived  to  be  old  and  gray- 
headed,  and  have  seen  a  great  many  things,  and  a  great  many 
men,  but  I  never  have  seen  a  bet  of  men  so  completely  under 
the  controle  of  the  scarlet  beast  on  which  the  woman  sat,  as 
Hicks  and  his  party  was,  and  to  thirst  for  the  blood  of  Saints 
under  the  pretence  of  doing  good.    Hicks  complains  of  my 


trying  to  injure  him.   I  call  to  the  heavens  above,  and  to  the 
earth  beneath,  to  bear  witness  if  I  dirt  not  give  him  every  evi- 
dence that  a  man  of  God  could  ask,  to  prove  to  him  that  I 
regarded  him  as  a  minister  oi  the  gospel,  unlil  he  commenced 
his  crusade  to  try  to  sacrifice  my  standing  and  my  character 
and  the  character  of  my  family,  and  because  I  undertook  to 
defend  myself,  he  then  commenced,  like  the  suborned  man, 
Acts  vi.  11, 12, 13.    I  suppose  he  thought  he  would  bring  the 
difficulty  to  a  close,  by  stoning  me  to  death ;  but  in  that  he 
was  mistaken — I  am  still  at  my  post,  and  there  I  hope  to  be 
found  when  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church  shall  send  hie 
angel  to  bring  my  discharge.    But  1  suppose  Hicks  and  the 
Weavers,  and  others,  thought  they  would  drive  me  away,  as 
they  could  not  entice  me  away,  and  get  the  glory  of  baign 
popular  themselves.    This  one  thing  I  can  say,  that  1  never 
tried  to  rise  on  the  downfall  of  others.    Hicks  talks  much 
about  his  compromise.    I  still  told  him  that  I  had  no  com- 
promise to  make,  for  1  did  not  believe  that  I  had  done  any 
thing  that  had  interrupted  the  church,  and  those  things  that 
had  interrupted  the  church  he  had  brought  there,  and  ought 
to  take  them  away,  and  all  things  would  be  right  again.— 
But  that  was  not  what  he  was  after — but  to  coinpell  me  and 

others  to  snbmit  to  the  Sons  of  Temperance.  This  I  did  not 
feel  willing  to  do,  for  I  never  felt  bound  to  submit  to  the  Son* 
of  Temperance.  Although  I  might  have  spent  ray  opinion 
in  full  about  the  Sons,  what  was  that  to  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  ?  Is  it  not  my  duty,  as  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christy 
to  preach  against  every  thing  that  I  thought  was  wrong?  If  I 
am  sent  of  God  to  preach,  am  I  not  commanded  to  "cry  aloud 
and  spare  not?"  But  I  suppose  Hicks  thought  that  the  Sons 
of  Temperance  was  too  holy  for  me  to  meddle  with,  but  would 
be  pleased  if  1  would  lift  my  voice  against  the  Baptist,  or 


f 

i 

Presbyterians,  and  destroy  their  moral  character,  even  if  U 
was  by  falsehood — he  wovUc)  have  stood  by  me,  and  defended 
me,  but  we  must  infer  that  he  esteemed  the  Sons  of  Temper- 
ance higher  than  the  church,.  I  ask  why  he  did  not  suppose 
that  I  alluded  to  Methodists  or  Methodist  preachers?  that 
would  have  seemed  more  consistent  with  good  sense,  and  then 
bring  me  to  trial  for  a  breech  of  Methodist  rules.  But  Hicks, 
as  little  sense  as  he  has  got,  happened  to  think  that  if  he  took 
the  course  of  justice  and  truth,  his  Baal  and  his  prophet* 
would  be  put  to  death,  therefore,  he  had  recourse  to  stratagem 
and  falsehood,  and  that  he  well  knew,  and  so  did  his  party, 
and  I  believe  all  the  country  around  believed  it  to  be  the  case. 

I  will  now  give  the  reader  the  sum  and  substance  of  my 
speech ;  as  it  cannot  be  expected  that  I  could  give  it  verbatim? 
I  will  give  it  so  as  the  reader  can  discover  what  gave  the  of- 
fense. When  J.  S.  Weaver  commenced  his  defence  of  the 
church,  according  to  my  best  recollection,  he  said  that  he 
would  have  to  go  to  "soap-making,"  and  I  suppose  that  his' 
mother  had  taught  him  that  the  first  ingredient  that  was  ne- 
cessary, is  lye.  I  suppose  he  thought  that  Hicks  had  provided 
all  the  materials,  and  he  bad  been  taught  the  rules  of  compo- 
sition by  his  mother.  He  could  maka  "  soap,"  but  she  had  not 
learned  him  the  rules  of  composition.  After  he  had  made  his 
remarks  about  "soap-making,"  he  took  the  Bible,  and  read 
about  "speaking  evil  of  dignitaries,"  and  then  took  the  Discip- 
line, and  read  "speaking  evil  of  Ministers,  and  Magistrates," 
and  then  tried  to  impress  the  minds  of  the  committee,  that  he 
(Brittain)  was  guilty.  After  he  was  done,  Brittain  called  on 
me  to  speak.  1  then  took  the  floor,  and  after  some  prelimin- 
ary remarks,  I  took  up  his  arguments  and  followed  him 
through  them,  and  I  believe  I  satisfied  the  committee  that 
Brittain  was  not  guilty  of  the  charges.    I  then  commenced 


my  remarks  w)  ich  gave  the  offense.  I  said  to  them.,  notice 
the  dilierence  made  between  myself  and  them.  I  was  there 
and  heard  v.  hat  way  said,  and  I  took  no  offense,  for  I  knew  ; 
that  I  was  not  guilty,  and  if  they  are  not  guilty,  they  need  not 
be  offend  u,  but,  said  I,  they  may  say  what  they  please  about 
me,  ane?  things  that  are  as  black  as  darkness,  and  they  pay  no 
uttenti  Ai  to  rny  character— they  do  not  bring  them  to  trial  for 
speaking  evil  of  me.  At  that  time  Clicks  rose  up  and  asked 
me  who  I  alluded  to  ?  J  said  to  him,  sit  down  till  I  am  done? 
tl  at  is  the  way  you  always  do  when  I  am  speaking ;  I  said  to 
iimthe  second  time  to  sit  down,  but  he  still  stood  there,  with 
his  indignant  looks,  and  said  he  did  not  know  that  any  body 
or  any  of  the  members,  (I  won't  say  which)  had  said  any  thing 
about  me.  T  do  confess  that  I  was  astonished  to  hear  him 
say  such  things.  I  then  thought  I  would  bring  him  -to  his 
recollection — I  still  faced  the  committee,  and  said  "they  have 
silk!  things  about  me  not  only  as  black  as  darkness,  but  as 
ijaefc  os  rfiidnigt  darkness  f  -and  'hen  turned  a  little  more 
iring  him,  and  with  the  gesture  o:  my  right  hand  towards 
mm,  said,  "  ynu  know  it  ;5:  aud  when  I  said  this  Hicks  fell 
like  Dagon.  before  ,the  ark,  and  I  suppose  Jacob  Weaver  * ' 
thought  I;  is ''Dagon  was  ruined — hi  bellowed  him  one  of  the 
bulls  of  S.ishon,  and  several  more  01  their  party  sprang  to 
their  fret,  and  acted,  as  I  w^s  informed,  as  though  they  inten- 
ded to  use  violence  ;  but  ItXajor  Brilton  and  some  of  my  gooaV 
friends,  who  had  known  me  all  their  life  time,  or  a  great* 
while,  stepped  to  my  batik  and  taught  them  by  signs,  the  pro- 
priety ol  behaving  themselves.  Some  of  them  were  of  the 
Presbyterian  crd  After  they  had  got  settled,  I  then  went 
on  with  my  remarks,  and  closed  by  saying  I  had  often  heard 
it  said  to  touih  a  galled  horse  and  he  will  flinch,  particularly 
if  you  touch  lllm  on  the  galled  place. 


